free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

Kcameronburr · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 17

What impression does Bookbinder give you of the political developments in Wiemar Germany? What is his perspective on the constitution?

It was challenging to pull apart Bookbinder's perspective on the constitution because of a probably unfair association I didn't realize I was making until late in the reading. Bookbinder opens discussion on the constitution by saying that, " The Weimar Constitution, like everything else connected with the Weimar Republic, was a compromise," (41) Two things. What I connect with the Weimar is failure, poverty, and inflation. Also, While compromise can be necessary and good sometimes, it also leaves no one happy and satisfied because you tend to fixate on what you didn't get, not what what you did get. So when Bookbinder says that the constitution was a compromise, I hear: The constitution was a failure in practice, and that it did not provide a cohesive set of cardinal ideas for the German people to build a sense of identity off of. When I think about the Constitution of the United states I think about liberty, freedom stuff like that, stuff that some might say is what the heart of our country is, the heart of our stereotypical American identity.

This facet of the Weimar's constitution is pretty conducive to the political climate and overall feeling of disunity in Germany at the time. One of the reasons Hitler was so successful in gaining power was that he gave the people a collective nationalist identity, they were German and should be proud of it. A large number of political parties and epic disunity (something the constitution laid the base for) was the impression of the political developments of Weimar I got from bookbinder.

sslotnick · Joined: 14 Feb 2011 Posts: 6

I quite agree that his opinion of the compromise was a negative one, clearly implied by the quote you gave on the first page. That being said, there was not much else that was available to them. There were so many different political parties that to not compromise on even a single issue would send the majority of the country into an uproar. I also found it interesting that the Catholic Center party was supported by Protestants, as the two groups haven't exactly been known to get along.

Kdaum2011 · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 19

I think another interesting point to examine, something brought up in the debate, was that despite the many opposing politically parties seeking to gain power in Germany, the government was fairly unstable and made even more so by these parties, "but most were hostile to the Republic and helped to create a climate which contributed to the decline and to the success of the Nazi Party." In fact, it seems that Conservatism seemed to be the prevailing attitude of the German people, perhaps a construct of their protestant influence, but nonetheless a large counter force to the Weimar Republic. Thus the Nazi party's rise to power was practically imminent given these conservative ideas. Religion ultimately played a major role in undermining the Republic, even the Catholics contributed as a conservative force (only to be exiled/killed and illegitimized by the Nazi Party).

maconlockery · Joined: 31 Mar 2011 Posts: 3

Bookbinder made Weimar sound like a great idea that was failed by its contemporaries. Weimar had the potential to lead Germany into a new age, but too many of the parties within Weimar were bent on destroying it; most notably, the Communists, National Socialists, and the German Peoples’ Party. In an era when radicalism was most detrimental, radicalism prevailed. I think Weimar should have imposed stricter regulations on the qualifications required for representation in the Reichstag. After the election of 1928, there were 14 parties represented in the Reichstag; this is way too many.

mreilly · Joined: 31 Mar 2011 Posts: 14

Bookbinder gives an impression of chaos in the politics of the Weimar Republic. There are so many political parties with clashing perspectives that there is no unity, which is why the government is in its present state. "The large number of political parties made coalition governments a necessity and limited the possibilities of decisive action." (pg 51) If the groups had worked together more decisions that could have helped the future of Germany could have been made. Also, the fact that many educated middle-class Germans disproved of politics and politicians in general did not help things. Bookbinder states clearly within the reading that the Weimar Republic was in great need of combining coalitions because the citizens could not command a majority until the votes reached up to 250 to over 300 votes. Bookbinder seems to look down upon the Weimar Constitution because the statements in it were too loose and contributed to " a decadent and immoral society."(pg 43) Although the Constitution did contain good things such as equality for women, promotion of economic justice and the protection of children Bookbinder criticizes it. "This constitutional framework provided the structure within and against which the political spectrum functioned." (pg 43) By saying this, he is proclaiming that the constitution is close to the root of the politics of the time and since the politics are in shambles he is insinuating that the constitution is too.

yamsham · Joined: 31 Mar 2011 Posts: 26

this is douglas again:

i think when they made the constitution they were trying to please too many people at once. like they had american values mixed with soviet values tied with... well you get the idea. they combined like one thing from each nation and made a basterd spawn of like five different systems.

it's funny that sam mentioned the un characteristic catholic protestant thing cause that must say a lot about the time in which this all happened. if they were able to settle differences for the good of the country in one party that says a lot about pride in nation.

but there was definately a lot of disaagreement at the same time cause you dont have this many influencial new parties popping up when things are all sunshine and roses. things sucked. so that made people very together but also very seperate. if you met someone and agreed on something you were like best buds. stick together!!!!!

it's funny how the weinmar republic and a lot of these parties were like for womens suffrage... thehy even were like "yeah wopmen can vote!!!!!!!!" but then like the one that ends up in infamous power after tearing this system down is the one thats' like the least accepting one at all. but then again a few of the parties were pretty anti jewish. so i figure that helped some. but also the nazis probably "worked" the best caus ethey were the most pro german ones... "no changes to counrty... make it like it was in it's glory days/ yeah!!" also they were like completely made up of the working class and soldiers who got teh butt end of the stick when the war occured. so tthey really had will power.

from the reading i would have to say i would not enjoy living in germany at this time cause there is just too much to be uncertain of and with all of this choas in a country trying to rebuid itself. i would not feel safe in the slightest. but i really appreciate what the republic tried to do. it just... failed.

edangelo · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 41

Throughout the text Bookbinder definitely puts across the disorder and disunity of Germany at the time. With so many political parties, nothing could really get done. Since the parties were so small there didn’t really seem to be any sense of solidarity or agreement. Without one strong, powerful movement things weren’t really going to progress forward, and change wasn’t going to happen.

I really agree with what people have been saying that bookbinder’s view on the constitution was a fairly negative one. He made the sharing of ideas seem like the parties were getting more or what they didn’t want then what they did. He gave across the same vibe about the constitution as he did about the state of politics in the country. I think he was putting across that the constitution reflected the state of chaos and disarray in the country.

ssteck2011 · Joined: 31 Mar 2011 Posts: 4

Bookbinder’s use of the word ‘compromise’ when describing the constitution seems to sum up his views of the Weimar Republic. The structure of the Republic and the politics were divided and relied on compromise. The constitution was created by combining successful parts of structures from other countries however, these structures did not adhere to what German’s wanted. In fact, multiple political parties were firmly against the Republic. The structure could not please anyone until the Germans reached a majority.

Bookbinder gives me the impression that this period was chaotic and frustrating. The views of political parties were scattered and no one seemed to be getting what they wanted. The major issues with this time period were the mass of political parties and therefore the necessity for compromise. In my opinion a successful government will give the majority of people, more or less, exactly what they are asking for. This government gave no one exactly what they wanted and definitely did not pleas the majority.

Free Forum