The German Revolution of 1918: A Failed Revolt

The origins of the 1918-19 German Revolution, or the November Revolution, can be traced back to the face of hubris of the German hereditary system: Wilhelm II. A fierce arms race with Britain covered in German chauvinism threatened the might of the Royal Navy and escalated World War One into the global conflict that it was, whilst defeat in the Great War divided the Kaiser’s subjects. Plagued with mutinies and insubordination, contrasting with the pride of soldiers spouting the stab in the back myth, the First World War provided an intense battleground for an intense battle between democracy and autocracy that fundamentally transformed the German political society.

Tom Cowling explains.

Leftist soldiers during fighting in the Berlin City Palace in 1918 as part of the German Revolution. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1976-067-30A / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

World War One

Armed with 5 naval laws aimed at threatening British dominance of the seas, the Kaiser and his court were gearing up for war. Totalling hundreds of new ships, and an increase of 136,000 in the army in 1912 (1), the naval laws forced Britain and her allies into creating formal alliances in the face of German hostility. Britain had alliances with Japan, Russia, and France. War was inevitable. Victories in the east against a flailing Russian Empire proved irrelevant by the time the American Expeditionary Forces landed in Europe. With hundreds of thousands of men entering Europe each month from the US, the German army was simply awaiting its fate. On the domestic front, the origins of a revolutionary movement were brewing as it became evident that this war was one of imperialism, with Germany occupying vast swathes of Eastern Europe. A split in the SPD, which had initially supported the war effort, saw the establishment of the Independent Socialists, fundamentally opposed to war. Led by the far-left Spartacists, there was a wave of strikes in January 1918, forcing a declaration of martial law (1). The age of insubordination had begun, and a fierce sense of chaos had swept across Germany.

At President Wilson’s indirect request, Germany made itself a constitutional monarchy and kickstarted the Revolution from Above. Governmental positions were granted to members of the Reichstag rather than the Kaiser’s comrades (1). The chancellor was made responsible to the Reichstag, whilst war could not be declared without parliament’s approval (1). His abdication came in November, at the insistence of Wilson’s men (1). The empire had shifted from a feared titan in Europe to a republic at the mercy of democracy. Friedrich Ebert, moderate SPD politician, was named chancellor (1). Wilson and his 14 points had established upheaval in Germany.

The start

Indiscipline marked the beginning of the Revolution from below; the new republic’s first threat to its existence. The left had an insatiable appetite for dictatorship, authoritarianism and control – the gravity of the situation was profound. Orders for an arrogant, and unwinnable, attack on the Royal Navy inevitably culminated in mutinies, which spread unstoppably to numerous ports on the Baltic Sea. With the military refusing to accept orders of the state, revolution was imminent. Communists seized power in Bavaria and workers’ councils snatched control of fourteen cities within days (2). Germany was on the brink of collapse, and submission to the left. Masses gathered in the capital as Karl Liebknecht, a key antagonist of democracy and prominent figure in the Spartacist League, stood on the Reichstag balcony and unabashedly called for a socialist republic (2). In a flurry of panic, the Freikorps, a paramilitary group of veterans desensitised by the experiences of war with loyalties firmly resting on the Kaiser, were sent in by Ebert to quell such left-wing dissent (1). Spartacist leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were executed for their revolutionary crimes (2). Their revolution had failed completely to build up the necessary foundations of an undemocratic, communist system. But efforts to change Germany into the ultra-democratic state it existed under in the Weimar Republic were successful enough that the political, governmental and constitutional framework of Germany was revolutionised following the events of 1918.

Success or failure?

From a Marxist perspective, the revolution was an abject failure. Capitalist institutions remained firmly in place, and the bourgeois tendencies of the army raged on. Democracy was entrenched in the new Weimar constitution, with proportional representation and universal suffrage (1). The results of 1918 were a far cry from Marx’s ideal of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Germany was well and truly a liberal state with institutional rejection of communist beliefs. Capitalism was central to the workings of Weimar democracy, with unions making agreements with industrialists not to cause disruption to production – the German workers were barred from seizing the means of production. Industrialists such as Hugo Stinnes presided over a huge amount of German industrial production in the new Germany, much to the dismay of Marxists. To the far-left in Germany, the events of 1918 served only to be scorned at as useless incremental change.

To the social democrats amongst the left in Germany, the revolution and its impact was a resounding success. They had swept away an antiquated system that kept people under the thumb of the monarch, and truly suppressed the will of the people that social democracy so desires. The left, in the form of the SPD, had power, with Ebert as chancellor, and the political extremes had been dealt with. The military system in Germany was committed to upholding democracy, having made deals with Ebert in return for the suppression of violent, extremist uprisings. The Freikorps were a reliable group to counteract left-wing rebellions, albeit through near insanity, but they would never let Germany fall to the communists, as they proved in the crushing of the rebellion that they contributed so significantly to. Democrats across Germany were undoubtedly intoxicated by the newfound democracy the new republic had in such abundance.

The right was naturally infuriated by the news of political change. The conservative doctrine couldn’t accept such sweeping changes, and such a rejection of ‘stability’. They had lost their deity in the form of the emperor, and had surrendered control and power to their natural enemy in the form of the centre-left. Despite this attack on the conservative order in Germany, they begrudgingly accepted the new political framework. They were protected from democratization of the army (1) which meant the most adored, to conservatives, institution was left alone from the transformation underwent in 1918. In spite of the rejection of nationalism by the new government, and the armistice, the conservative right more or less accepted the position they found themselves in.

Conclusion

To many aligning themselves with the political extremes, the revolution was something to look upon with great disdain. Marxists and conservatives alike were sworn enemies of democracy, and both looked upon the revolution as a ‘failure’. But the democrats won. They won democracy and they won freedom from the Kaiser, whilst winning power. To them, the revolution was a blessing, and saw them get what they wanted. As Marxists didn’t get enough change, and conservatives got far too much, social democrats in Germany were granted their wish of democracy and accountability as a direct result of the 1918 revolution.

What do you think of the 1918 German Revolution? Let us know below.

Bibliography

1. Kitchen, M. (2006) A History of Modern Germany 1800-2000. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

2. Sewell, R. (2018) The German Revolution of 1918, In Defence of Marxism. Available at: https://www.marxist.com/the-german-revolution-of-1918.htm (Accessed: 24 July 2023)

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 4 – How the War Impacted Germany

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs continues her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers how the war ended, how Germany got the blame for the war, and the lasting impact in Germany.

Part 1 in the series is on the decades leading up to World War One is here, part 2 on the role of Austria-Hungary in the outbreak of war here, and part 3 on the roles of the Great European Powers in the build-up to war here.

The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles 1919.

Welcome back! We’ve covered a good deal of information during he first three parts of just how the world spiraled into chaos in 1914. But now the answer to the question that brought us here. Why did Germany get the blame? After all, the conflict would not have occurred without the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. He wasn’t even German, but Austrian. And what about those Austrians? Shouldn’t they carry some of this blame? They were the ones who wanted to fight in the first place. Germany had no direct reason to be involved other than having a treaty of military aid to Austria. 

So besides all that, let’s start with the most obvious reason: They were the first to invade anyone. Up until they crossed into Belgium in August 1914, no one had fired a shot, and no one had really believed that hostilities were that far gone. Things could have cooled, especially with Great Britain, if Germany had only got out of its own way. Arrogance and their determination at being seen as a major player is what started the war.

The War’s Progress

As the war progressed its long four-year ordeal, Germany, along with the rest of the Central Powers (that also included the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, who need their story told all on its own), began to crumble under the weight of starving troops, starving populations, and radical ideals bubbling to the surface of their cities. In 1917, Germany sent for a secret weapon to knock one of the fronts off its back. They chose the Eastern Front because Russia was simmering with revolution. That weapon was Vladimir Lenin. They paid his passage to Russia, arriving from exile like a missing hero ready to take the lead. By the end of 1917, Germany has knocked Russia out of the war by using the cries of revolution to do it. 

In Austria, things were going bad to worse. In 1916, the old Emperor Franz Josef died. His successor was the great nephew of the Emperor’s brother. Charles I, also known as Karl IV (in Hungary), became the ruler of the country at a time when change was a dangerous game. He would only be emperor for two years before abdicating his powers and abolishing the monarchy. The young King himself would be dead within 4 years of the war’s end. With the end of Austria-Hungary the land that made up the country was officially split. Austria became its own country and so did Hungary.

The Ottoman Empire

Of the other members of the Central Powers, the Ottoman Empire (known at the time as ‘the old man of Europe’ because they had been around since 1453) also came to a close. The sultan was deposed, although he had been nothing but a figurehead for quite some time. In fact in 1918 the Ottomans were forced to give up after the armistice between Bulgaria and the Allies. Suddenly the Ottomans had no help from them, Austria-Hungary had already begun to disintegrate, and Germany no longer had the manpower to send relief.  The Ottoman Empire signed its own armistice with Great Britain in October of 1918, just one month before the official end to the war.

In its peace terms, the Ottoman Empire was to be occupied by French, Italian, and British troops. It also stipulated that the Ottoman Empire be carved up into smaller countries; effectively ending the country as a whole. The area known as the Ottoman Empire became separate countries; including Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the boundary lines of Palestine, and the preliminary decisions of establishing land for a Jewish state. Turkey would end up changing their capital’s name from Constantinople to Istanbul.

Meanwhile, still in a position of power, the generals of Germany were beginning to see the unrest in their troops. Before long it becomes apparent that they had lost all control of their armies, and the rise of democracy became the voice of the people. While trying to salvage some remnant of the country, Kaiser Wilhelm was forced to abdicate the throne. But, unlike Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, Germany did not cease to exist. The country remained unified but was now a democracy. Their elective body became known as the Weimar Republic, had control over the country and helped negotiate the ending of the war. This is why Germany is blamed. Solely for the reason of ‘last country standing.’ The season of revolution arrived and in its ruins only Germany, for the most part, remained intact. I believe had any one of the other belligerents, Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire been left with some power, the blame would have been split. Since neither country existed anymore, combined with the desire to teach Germany a lesson, is how this blame came to pass. 

Accepting Terms

On a train near one of the battlefields, the representatives of the new Germany Republic were forced to sign the official Armistice. Later on at the official signing of the Treaty of Versailles they were given no chance to negotiate the terms of the treaty. All the decisions were made by the victors, including a rather smug France who implored the peace talks be decided in Paris to begin with. This brought rise to the belief that those who signed for Germany were no more than traitors to their country. Hitler used parts of this to imply that Jewish politicians were to blame for surrendering so easily.

The terms of the treaty were as follows: German land was handed over to other countries. France acquired the Rhineland, and additional lands were split between Denmark, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia. The bulk of the land was given to the newly formed country of Poland; and any colonies that Germany had were also divided up amongst the allies. From a military perspective the treaty stipulated that the army be reduced to 100,000 men, and all remaining tanks were to be destroyed. The Air Force was dismantled and any German U-Boats were to be destroyed. Essentially the country was gutted and stripped of everything that made them proud.

The final terms of the treaty were the worst of all. Germany was ordered to repay the war debt that had accumulated over the course of the war. They were charged 132 Billion Gold Marks, with a requirement of 50 Billion to be paid in full. If we adjusted for inflation, that would be $393.6 billion dollars (using the year 2005 as a point of reference). This threw the country into shambles. The citizens had lost all faith and credibility in the Monarchy and the military. While the war started with the Kaiser playing an active role in the planning and decision making, by its end he had been completely in the dark as to what was actually happening in his own country. The two generals who essentially ran the country during this time were Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenberg. Of these two, you could argue that Ludendorff was more responsible for decisions with a warped sense of reality to the loyalty of the German people and their troops.

Germany Post-war

With the Weimar Republic formed, Germany began elections under a new democracy and the former Kaiser went into exile. He ended up living the rest of his life in the Netherlands. He always thought that one day he’d return to his post but it never came. He sadly had hopes that with Hitler’s rise, he would return to prominence. But like so many others, he too was placed under Nazi Occupation in the last years of his life. 

The new government began paying the war debt immediately. Then when Hitler rose to power in the 1930s he ordered the debt not to be paid. The country would not begin to pay that debt again until after WW2. The total war debt would not be paid in full until the year 2010, some 92 years since its enforcement.

So what are your thoughts? Does Germany deserve the blame? Or is the perception of their guilt clouded by revisionist history? It’s a debate that will probably go on forever. The only thing we can all agree with is that the end of the war in 1918 was not a real peace treaty; it was merely an agreement to stop fighting - placing a band-aid on the sore spot to be dealt with at another time. Do you think if those who signed the armistice of 1918 would have done something different, if they knew what was to come within 20 years? We’ll never know.

Let us know your thoughts below.

Sources

Wikipedia 

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armageddon parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer