read this book: you should be able to recognize at leastGerman political parties from thes, know who Hindenburg, Ludendorff and the major figures of the Weimar era are, have an idea what the Dawes/Young plan was, Ruhr Crisis, Locarno, as well as have a good idea when every German election betweenandwas, plus their results
If you don't, this is not the book for you
This is not a book for a casual WWfan
This is a firstrate research source that was impeccably developed by a genuine expert.
This is possibly the best source on the Weimar republic's back and forth politics, Its a tough read, easy to get lost, but the research and analysis is firstrate, You are not going to fed a good amount of context, so its important that you have enough grounding before in order to tackle this book.
its likepages, and you'll probably need to put it down liketimes before finishing it When discovering a history book by a man called Mommsen a historian cant help but get excited.
And its about the Weimar Republic too, that brief flowering of German democracy between WWand the Nazi takeover.
What an exciting combination of topic and author!
But alas, this book is nothing like Theodor Mommsens magna opera on the Roman Empire.
Ive never read a book so extensive in detail yet restrictive in scope, This is marketed as a political history of the Weimar Republic, yet what it really is is a very narrow description of the shifts within the major parties.
Even that does it more justice than it deserves since you dont really know what these policy issues were about.
For example, the end of the war and the Treaty of Versailles consumes a lot of the early chapters.
But what happened there and what was in the terms that was so unforgiving I know enough from other reading to have a basic understanding of the peace treaty, but I read this book hoping to hear the German viewpoint of why these terms were so unacceptable and we dont get that.
All we get is a basic alignment of the individuals and parties opposed to/in favor of ratifying it.
Mommsen refuses to
discuss anything substantive, I suppose that this is part of his thesis that the parties only kept a very narrow and shortsighted focus on immediate goals and had no ability to see beyond their immediate circumstance or make bold decisions.
But heres the thing: you cant prove that the subjects of your book were narrow and limited in imagination by embodying those qualities yourself.
In the end I am a complete agnostic on the points raised here since I dont trust the authorial voice enough to believe his conclusions.
And thats really all we get: conclusions, Suchandsuch a person was shortsighted and couldnt see the forest for the trees, Want to understand why their decision was wrong Too bad, Onto the next decision.
The book assumes one hell of a lot about the background knowledge of its readers.
The number of names and political parties mentioned is mindblowing, but no attempt is ever made to introduce them.
This would be a terrible introduction to this subject for someone who knows nothing about it, But I cant understand who else would be reading this thing, Who is this book meant for Experts Surely theyll already have had to work through the information in here in smaller, moremanageable nuggets.
Perhaps the book is intended as a reference work, one that experts on the period can look to when seeking a specific date or fact.
But thats not how its marketed,
I have rarely been more disappointed in a book I was so excited to discover.
I am now seeking out a better history of the Weimar Republic, but narrative histories of this period are rare in English and I dont care to painstakingly pick my way through a work in German.
Unless you have a strong background in German history and want to discover Mommsens view on key issues Id avoid this book.
Every time this book tries to make some sort of general point about the cultural and ideological elements of the crisis of Weimar Germany, it falls totally flat on its face.
Excellent discussion of the political and economic situation, however, Outstanding detail, especially about the undermining of the Weimar Republic by those who could have made it work and thus kept Hitler from power.
Democracy is always difficult, and conditions in Germany after WWI made it particularly hard to sustain the compromise and cooperation needed for a democracy to be governed well.
The details and the situations are very different, but still there are many frightening parallels to the US today.
Consider these excerpts from Mommsen, . .
neither President Hindenburg nor Chancellor Bruning was ever prepared to invite the SPD Socialists to join the government thus precluding a return to parliamentary government
.
. . Strasser failed to recognize that Hitler was determined to avoid clear political positions and sought instead to commit the party and Germany to a messianic faith in his own leadership abilities
.
. . those social groups that supported the Nazis were those who felt threatened with a loss of social status they were not succeeding in middle class careers and were insecure
.
. . Goebbels was intent on portraying Hitler as "our last best hope" decisive for party cohesion pounded into public consciousness at every opportunity Nazi election campaigns were conducted with energy and professionalism
.
. . by midthe Nazi Party had exhausted its voter potential the lack of visible achievements was causing an erosion of support a growing number of resignations form the party reduced financial contributions mounting internal criticism of Hitler's political course
.
. . Fritz Gerlich and Ingbert Naab, editors of Der gerade Weg, criticized the confusion of the Catholic parties which failed to take Hitler's "absolute will to evil" seriously.
. . the Catholic Center Party made it clear that it would not support a presidential cabinet led by Papen
.
. . Hindenburg met with all party leaders except SPD, since Papen categorically refused to deal with SPD
.