Monthly Archives: May 2021

The Weimar Republic was Germanys first experiment in democracy. It was founded after the aftermath of the German defeat in World War I. The Republic faced many challenges during its short life. It was undermined by right and left-wing extremists and the military. Many have seen the fall of the Weimar Republic as inevitable. However, it could have succeeded but for the economic calamity of the Great Depression.

After the failure of the last great German offensive on the western front in 1918, it was clear that Germany would lose the war. Because of the war and the Allied blockade, many Germans were on the verge of starvation. There were waves of strikes, and communists and socialists were actively demonstrating against the government. The German Field Marshal Ludendorff, who had effectively been the military dictator of Germany, was dismissed, and the Imperial government sought to make peace with the allies.

As the government was negotiating peace terms with the Allies, a revolution broke out in German. Workers went on strike and established committees that seized control of many urban centers. In response, the Social Democrat leader Erbert demanded to become Chancellor of Germany. He and others declared the Weimar Republic in November 1918. Soon after, elections were held, and the Social Democrats formed the first government. The Constitution of the Weimar Republic established it as a presidential republic.[1]

The Weimar Republic had to negotiate the Treaty of Versailles with the victorious allied and implement its perceived harsh conditions, such as the payment of war reparations to France and other countries, loss of territories and colonies, and the limits sets on Germanys army.[2] These negotiations made the government extremely unpopular with many in the traditional elite and the army. The first government of the Weimar Republic was effectively coerced into signing the Treaty of Versailles. One of the chief goals of successive Weimar governments was to renegotiate or to alleviate the terms of what many Germans saw as an unjust and infamous treaty.[3]

Despite the Revolution in 1918, many on the left believed that it did not go far enough. The radical left wanted a communist system in Germany. Revolutionaries established the Communist Republic in Bavaria and later seized control of the Ruhr. These were both defeated by the German army and right wing-militias the Freirkorps. In 1919, Communists, led by Rosa Luxembourg, tried to stage a revolution in Berlin. The army also defeated this with great brutality. It was not only the left that was a threat to the Weimar Republic.

The far-right also sought to overthrow the Republic. They blamed the Weimar Republic for the predicament of Germany and the infamous Treaty of Versailles. There was an attempted right-wing coup in Berlin in 1919, the Kapp Putsch. In 1922, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis tried to seize Munich control but was quickly defeated by German troops.[4]

The Weimar Republic was able to resist the extremists attempts to seize power.[5] However, the Republic, because of its poor economic decisions and the effect of reparations, resulted in hyperinflation. Inflation rose, and the price of essential goods rose dramatically. Inflation caused bankruptcies, strikes, and extraordinary poverty. Many Germans starved at this time. Yet, the Weimar Republic was resilient and survived the challenges. In part because many Germans feared that it would be replaced by something worse, such as Communism.[6]

Despite the hyperinflation and extremist violence, the Weimar Republic survived, and democratically elected governments were able to make significant changes to the German economy and society. Able politicians like Gustave Stresemann were able to secure amendments to the Versailles Treaty's financial clauses, which helped the economy improve. He was also able to secure loans from the United States to help Germany recover from the war and hyperinflation.

The Weimar Republic was also able to improve relations with other countries such as France. German culture also flourished at this time, and Berlin became a famous artistic center at this time. By 1928, it appeared that the Weimar Republic was a success and would provide Germany with a stable and democratic form of government for many years to come. During these years, the left and right-wing extremists had been marginalized, but they still had significant popular support.[7]

In 1929 the Great Depression was triggered by a massive US stock market crash. Counterproductive and damaging economic policies exacerbated it. Financial panics and bank failures slow crept around the world. The repercussions were felt around the globe and especially in Germany. The United States could no longer provide the loans that the Weimar Republic needed.

Furthermore, global trade almost came to a standstill, and many Germans became unemployed. One in three Germans were unemployed at the height of the economic crisis, and poverty and hunger were widespread. The Republic was in the grip of an economic and social crisis.

In 1930, the conservatives won the election. Chancellor Brunning embarked on a series of disastrous economic and political policies. His economic policies involved devaluing the German currency, but this had only the effect of causing hyperinflation that compounded Germanys economic problems. Furthermore, Brunning discarded the Constitution and ruled by Presidential decree to manage the country's socio-economic conditions. The Great Recession and Brunning's response led many people to become disillusioned with the Republic and even democracy. [8]

As the effects of the Great Depression continued, there was a revival in the extremist parties in Germany. The Communist Party received approximately one-quarter of the popular vote, and its supports controlled many working-class neighborhoods in urban centers. The right-wing National Socialist Party also won support, and in the 1932 election, they received almost one-third of the vote.[9] The mainstream political parties seemed unable to manage the socio-economic crisis. Many conservatives were worried about the specter of a Communist revolution.[10] They withdrew their support for the Republic and looked for ways to ensure that the Communists did not take control.

President Hindenburg and his allies offered the Chancellorship to Adolf Hitler as part of a strategy to keep the Communists out of power. Hitler began to assume more and more power and suspended the Weimar Republic's Constitution, and it was effectively dead. Under the 1934 Enabling Act, Hitler was made the German people and nation's undisputed leader.[11]

The Weimar Republic was born out of war and revolution. The Republic faced many internal threats from Communists and right-wing extremists. It also had to manage an unprecedented economic crisis and a war-ravaged society. It was also left with the task of signing the unpopular Versailles Treaty. However, it was able to negotiate these and could bring stability and some limited prosperity to Germany. The Great Depression was to prove fatal for the Republic. The Weimar political parties were unable to deal with the socio-political crisis caused by the Depression, which led people to seek their salvation in Communism and Nazism, which led to the death of the Republic, after only a 15-year existence.

Updated November 14, 2018Admin and EricLambrecht

View post:

Why did the Weimar Republic Collapse? - DailyHistory.org

If the purpose of a thought experiment is to cast new light on familiar phenomena, the better to inspire a cascade of new thoughts on scarcely registered realities, J.B. MacKinnon certainly delivers in The Day the World Stops Shopping. On his way to exploring what could happen in the wake of a sudden 25 per cent drop in human consumption, MacKinnon offers eye-opening explanations of everything from why energy-saving products have not decreased climate-threatening carbon emissions to what causes those mysterious holes in your T-shirt. Shopping begins by noting that, for 50 years, our consumption of planetary resources has accelerated, first in rich countries and then worldwideto the extent that it passed population as humanitys greatest environmental challenge around the turn of the millennium, according to the UNs expert panel on resources. And weve barely noticed, the author adds in an interview.

Its one of those shifting baselines where the circumstances change so gradually, says MacKinnon, one of the most prominent journalists in Canada, whose previous books include the Charles Taylor Prize winner Dead Man in Paradise and the bestseller The 100-Mile Diet. Airline travel is the first personal change that comes to his mind. When I think back to life in the year 2000, comparing the amount I flew then to how much Iand the people I knowfly now, its much more. Im constantly encountering people who take off for a quick break several times a year. But flight is not alone in explosive 21st-century growth. The number of clothing items bought per person has increased 60 per cent over 20 years, and the number of digital devices has risen even more sharply.

READ:The sense of urgency around climate change is trending up

There is much to unpack in those and related developments. The growth in clothes buying is accompanied by a reduction in apparel cost. In 2000, clothing expenditure represented about 15 per cent of the average household budget; thats now five per cent. We spend the savings on more but cheaper garmentstheir average lifeems have been halvedbecause its the thrill of shopping that matters most. (Balance that against the holes that quickly appear in contemporary T-shirts thin fabric from being rubbed at the beltline: Im glad to explain that one, MacKinnon laughs. I hope that helps a lot of people.)

The contemporary everyone-their-own-phone, a-TV-in-every-room world requires enormous amounts of power, also little noticed by most users. According to one expert interviewed by MacKinnon, when asked about the energy use associated with their phones, most people think only of recharging the batteries, not about the massive data processing centres that allow users to stream the video they watch on those phones. We still associate energy demand and emissions with goods, not services, although they are just as voracious. Remember when millennials were declared to be the generation that would save the planet because they were shifting from products to experiences? asks the 51-year-old author. Well, their experiences turned out to be intensely consumeristic.

Or consider the arrival of light-emitting diodes (LEDs). They use 75 per cent less energy than older light bulbs and should have made a serious dent in power demands. Instead, we seem to have spent the money saved on . . . more lighting. The enormous video screens on building facades, the 10,000 lights on the Hernando de Soto Bridge in Memphis, Tenn., and the explosion in decorative lighting in private homes and gardens were all made possible by LEDs. Back in 2016, MacKinnon recalls, experts were sure LED use, however widespread, could never cancel out the energy saving. But now, when I talk to those same people, they say nobodys going to be surprised if it turns out LEDs are consuming as much or more energy than the technology they replaced.

The world has also been greening its energy for the past two decades, investing billions in energy-efficient technology and renewable energy in an effort that has yet to reduce carbon emissions for even a single year. Theres so much magical thinking about green technology, says MacKinnon. People buy an electric car and literally feel that it has no environmental consequences. When there is energy to spare, especially low-cost energy, humans use it. Since the Second World War, carbon emissions have fallen only four times, all during severe economic downturns: the mid-1980s, the early 1990s, 2009 and 2020s pandemic lockdowns. Emissions only fall, MacKinnon concludes, when the world stops shopping.

READ:What will shopping in Canada look like in the aftermath of coronavirus?

So why not give that a try, MacKinnon asks, rather than hoping for a techno-fix to our climate-imperilling lifestyle? Hence his thought experiment. He does acknowledge, however, than an overnight drop in consumption of 25 per cent would return the planet only to the economic activity level of a decade ago. And it would be no solution to our environmental woes, although it would buy time to delay the climate shocks widely predicted to start hitting hard a decade from now.

The authors theoretical model is hardly elegant, but its not entirely an imaginative exercise. There is real-life data to support the idea that humans would adapt and that the economic contraction would be, MacKinnon writes, the end of the world as we know it, but not the end of the world. Finland suffered a sharp, brutal economic downturn in the 1990s. Most middle-class people in Ecuador live now as most of North America did in 1970, with vacations close to home and restaurant meals as rare treats. Contemporary Japan, slowly depopulating, offers a possible slow- to no-growth future path.

There are places that use less night lighting, and others that effect some sort of common day of economic shutdown, the way Sunday closing once did in most of Canada, a day for a society to reduce its carbon footprint. Most widely shared of all, though, were 2020s COVID lockdowns, when emissions shrank by seven per cent over the yearmore than the global economy itselfwhile blue skies and animal life rebounded.

The lockdown experience provides the strongest case for MacKinnons de-growth side. For years, the International Energy Agency (IEA), once one of the leading groups fighting climate change, has taken the position that the only way to reduce carbon emissions is to decouple the emissions from economic growth by greening the energy. Reducing growth was a non-starter, as IEA chief economist Laszlo Varro told MacKinnon: I am not aware of a country where a government won a democratic election with a program of We want to intentionally reduce your consumption. But even the best green-growth scenarios do little to stop the emissions tide even while requiring technological and cultural changes hardly more plausible, according to Shopping, than the idea that the worlds citizens could be persuaded to buy a little less stuff. De-growth, on the other hand, provides immediate benefits: a 25 per cent cut in consumption equals a 25 per cent drop in emissions.

The dislocation would be massive, of course, including job losses centred in poorer nations, where the rich worlds stuff is made. Clothing factories would be particularly hard hit. Those sorts of socio-economic transitions, like the developed worlds evolution from farm to dark satanic mill to contemporary prosperity, have always been brutal. But they neednt be, according to MacKinnon. If we were to make the transition as I would want society to make it, we would pay close attention to who is vulnerable, and when there is less work and less income, to redistribute access to that work and income.

To that end, Shopping offers practical steps forward. They include lifespan labelling to encourage product durability in a throwaway societyand thereby reduce buyingas well as tax regimes that favour repair over disposability, and a basic annual income that would blunt the job sector dislocation. And ever-practical MacKinnon is even willing to sharply reduce his 25 per cent goal. Start with a five per cent cut, he urges, because carrying on the way we are really isnt an option. A simpler life awaits us one way or another, if not through some great awakening, then because civilization will collapse beneath its own weight.

This article appears in print in the June 2021 issue of Macleans magazine with the headline, More is too much. Subscribe to the monthly print magazine here.

Read the original post:

Green technology is fine, but to really save the planet we need to shop less - Maclean's

With the dramatic collapse of communism in Southeast and Eastern Europe, the newly democratically elected governments had to face the harsh reality of being unable to properly run their countries based on a liberal democratic political system. Also, neither the governments nor their productive sector was able to cope with the rising private enterprise, which was based on supply and demand, fruitful competition, and quality of products. As a result, promoting the essence of democracy and free markets, fell into the hands of the U.S, which for years tried to find a way to make its presence in the region clear. The response of the U.S government after the fall of communism in 1989 and the dissolvement of the Soviet Union in 1991, was swift and methodical. With the signing of a series of legislative acts in the period of 1989-1995, known as the Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, and their implementation through the United States Agency for International Development, the U.S has managed to leave its footprint in the region and establish a network of democratic support to all the former Warsaw Pact country members, as well as the country members of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.

The SEED Act and Americas objectives in post-communist Eastern Europe

The Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, was part of a series of legislative acts that passed by Congress in the period 1989-1995. The laws were passed under the presidency of both George H.W Bush and Bill Clinton. The legislation was passed as a response to the growing demand for international help in post-communist countries. It is regarded by many as the most successful policy act towards Central and Eastern European countries. While initially the focus of this policy was targeted towards Hungary and Poland, with the growing request from other nation-states in the region, the U.S encompassed more countries such as Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Albania e.t.c, and later on, after the end of the Yugoslavia wars, it managed to include more countries from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

The primary goal of the SEED is to promote the establishment and enhancement of democratic institutions and help transit the economies of the respected countries that are part of this act, into a free market economy, that will allow any of those countries not only to overcome the centralized bureaucratic communist system but also to become more productive, reliable and trustworthy members of the greater Transatlantic community like their fellow Western democracies. At first, this legislation was focused on Poland and Hungary allowing the U.S to designate two private, nonprofit organizations such as the Polish-American Enterprise Fund and the Hungarian-American Enterprise Fund to promote the development of the Polish and Hungarian private sectors. With that being said, the initial thought of the American side was to not recreate a full-scale of the Marshall Plan, simply because the crushing budget deficits of those countries provoked little interest for the U.S. Instead through the SEED, the U.S government managed to establish different assistance programs, that over time, managed to assist more countries in Central and Eastern Europe and later on, in the Balkan region. These programs were focused on stabilization assistance, development assistance, technical assistance, and political conversion. Also, the aid that would come from the U.S would be directly focused on the agricultural sector, the private sector, educational and cultural programs, as well as scientific programs.

The core message that was expressed through the SEED was the fact that, although at the beginning, any sort of financial aid would be minimal, there would be a possibility of a change to this tactic, only if the fledgling democracies that were undergoing a massive transformation would agree to adopt the ways of Western Europe and the ways that the U.S was proposing for the. In other words, this meant that, if by any chance any of the countries that wished to benefit from the SEED Act, had to fulfill some pre-requirements. For the financial assistance to be implemented, the interested countries had to remove trade restrictions while fully liberalizing the investment and the capital of the country, including foreign investment, while allowing any interested U.S investors to export their profits from these countries. Also, there had to be an increased focus on the development of the capital financial markets that would allow privatization of any public assets. Throughout the years, the SEED Act, allowed the U.S to leave a footprint in the countries that got rid of communism and further help them through other independent agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which is responsible for administering foreign aid and development assistance. If we provide an analysis as to why the U.S is so keen on the development of the post-communist countries, we can identify the two main reasons as to why the U.S was and still is so interested in the democratic and free-market development of the region. The first reason was the fact that if the U.S would financially assist these countries, then it will manage to increase its economic transactions with more countries while also boosting its trading and the uninterrupted free flow of capital profits back to it. The second reason has to do with the geopolitical aspect of the SEED act and the role of the USAID.

If we examine this from a realistic point of view, the U.S has managed not only to increase its economic capital but also establish close diplomatic and military ties with the respected countries in an effort to counter any foreign interest coming from Russia or China. Also, this means that, once the U.S has assured the economic development and establishment of democratic institutions in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, then their accession to the NATO and eventually their incorporation into the European Union, would allow the U.S to maintain close ties in the region and add to its already large military cooperation with third countries. Out of all the countries that the U.S has managed to assist, Romania is one of those interesting cases in Southeast Europe, and it has proven itself as a reliable strategic partner for the United States of America.

The case of Romania

The bilateral ties between Romania and the U.S were always more or less on warm status, but both countries built a strong bilateral relationship after the Romanian Revolution of 1989. The U.S was focused on the legal and fair transition of power in Romania. In 1990, right after the end of the revolution, Secretary of State James Baker expressed the concern of the U.S towards the unfair discriminatory treatment of opposition parties in the May elections in Romania and made it clear that the U.S would not support an undemocratic Romanian government. The Romanians quickly realized that if they wanted any support from the U.S they would have to incorporate more Western democratic values in their country. As a result, in 1992, Romania conducted fair parliamentary and presidential elections. Encouraged by the fair democratic results, Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger visited Romania in 1992. It was a symbolic visit because it allowed the Romanians to demonstrate their commitment to fully implement Western democratic values in their country. The same year, both countries signed a bilateral investment treaty (BIT), and one year later, in 1993, Romania returned to the status of Most Favored Nation (MFN). These agreements allowed Romania to completely transition its economy, allowing for American investment in energy, manufacturing, telecommunications services, consumer products sectors, and information technology.

With that being said, it was clear that Romania was managing step by step to take substantive steps toward institutionalizing political democracy and economic pluralism, the sole requirement of the SEED act. Besides that, the USAID had a critical role in Romania. In a span of 17 years, until Romanias graduation from the program in 2008, the socio-economic profile of the country has changed for the better. The USAID has managed to fund and establish various NGOs that focus on the rapid decrease of children in orphanages and improving the condition in the remaining institutions for these kids. Also, the civic organizations in Romania, have managed to establish sustainable partnerships with the public and private sector and improve transparency and fairness in both sectors. Last but not least, the private businesses in Romania have managed to become an established feature of Romanias civil society by gaining sustainable funds from the USAID that are directly invested in the tourism, agriculture, food processing, and the industrial sector that allow Romania to flourish as a stable economic power in Southeast Europe.

Apart from the socio-economic factors, the U.S has contributed to the enhancement of the military treaties between itself and Romania. On March 29, 2004, Romania joined NATO and established itself as a reliable ally of the U.S in Southeast Europe. A year after that, in 2005, Romania and the United States signed the Defense Cooperation Agreement, the framework for any future military engagements of both countries. With Romania joining NATO, the U.S managed to gain a foothold in Southeast Europe, close to Russia, and demonstrated its capabilities in creating and sustaining reliable military alliances, helping Romania avoid any influence from the East, while protecting its national interests in the region. With Romania joining NATO, the road towards a future integration in the EU was clearer. With the help of the U.S, Romania managed to meet the requirements for an EU integration. Some of those requirements were focused on reforms that would help Romania become more Western, such as the acknowledgment of respect for human rights, the commitment to personal freedom of expression, having a functioning free-market economy e.t.c. Romania joined the European Union on January 1st, 2007 and according to the European Commission, the country is set to join the Eurozone sometime in 2024. Some may argue that Romania has to be thankful to the U.S for the tremendous progress that has been made, and this will not be far from the truth, since until today both countries enjoy strong military and economic ties.

Democratization or Americanization of Romania?

However, there are always some voices from within Romania that see this whole progress with skepticism. Some argue that although Romania is a democracy, it does not have a democratic society. There are reports of high levels of corruption and nepotism in the public sector. According to Transparency International, Romania is the fourth most corrupt country in the EU, after Hungary, Greece, and Bulgaria. Besides that, the standard of living in the country has not changed significantly since the end of communism, and there is a strong demographic collapse that is connected with the so-called brain drain of the country, with high levels of labor export towards Western Europe. There is some criticism towards the U.S, that points to the fact that the changes in Romania have benefited the American side more than the Romanian one, and there is a feeling that Romania is still stuck in the past.

Although any sort of criticism should be reviewed thoroughly, one can argue that the U.S is not to be solely blamed. After all, the aid that was sent to Romania and the efforts of the U.S to westernize the country were always focused on the national and economic interests of the United States. It is safe to say that the U.S was applying a realistic aspect in its policy towards Romania, realizing the strategic geopolitical position of the country and the important economic outcomes that would come if Romania became a close ally of the United States. The alliance between the two countries and their ties are relatively strong even today, and although there are corruption problems in the country, Romania seems to have benefited more than any other post-communist country regarding aid from the United States. In a way, the policy of the U.S towards Romania was a success as both countries remain close allies, and Romania is enjoying a better socio-economic and political situation within its borders.

Related

More here:

European Union Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific and the Role for India - Modern Diplomacy