Talk:Weimar Republic/Archive 1

message: You should write something about the lifestyle and culture in the Weimar Republic of the 1920s. Berlin was the center of the world back then (Fritz Lang, Marlene Dietrich, etc.)
----
"The use of almost pure proportional representation (similar to present-day Israel)"
Mentioning israel here seems very weird. Is this a troll ?
-----
The phrase, "To ensure that his fledgling government was able to maintain control over the country, Ebert pacted with the OHL, now led by Ludendorff's successor General Wilhelm Groener" is problematic because Ludendorff has never been mentioned in the article up to that point.
Earlier, the article states, "From 1916 onwards, the 1871 German Empire had effectively been governed by the military, led by the Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL, Supreme Army Command) with the Chief of Staff Paul von Hindenburg."  I thought this role was actually played by Ludendorff, though I could be wrong about that.
Either way, the article should explain who Ludendorff is before referencing him in that way.
From Text
"His audacious plan was to find a majority in the Reichstag by uniting the trade unionist left wings in the various parties, including that of the NSDAP led by Gregor Strasser. This did not prove successful either."
This seems to imply that the NSDAP (IE the Nazis) was leftwing. Also an alliance between the left (far-left?) and the Nazis seems somewhat improbable.
I wont change yet mind.
Mazzarin 04:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Posts

message: I note that there is no mention of why the collapse occurred, no reference to the Enabling Act here . No link ... No reference to the suborning of Hindenberg  father and  son through taxation-related blackmail  and other related issues .  I note that there is  notice of the banker .  I am working on this , this is a temporary notice  of notice . Famekeeper 09:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: So it seems that you Wyss believe that  Artcle 48 (49?) allowed for the arrest and dormancy of the KPD  deputies . That wouldn't allow for their original arrest prior to the Fire Act , and still seems to me in contradiction with section 2 of the Enabling Act . Since you have  written that it comes under the 49 decree, I should really like to see my questions regarding how the dormany or arrest of the Reichstag members was  legal at any time ...please , can  you get me off this point...? Famekeeper 12:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the pith of it. They were bullied out of the system (as subversives- traitors) by the SA and police... and it was all declared legal by the government under the emergency powers of the 1919 constitution (48- not so sure about 49 but that's what they used). Was it legal? Democracies have checks and balances like supreme courts to interpret applications of the law and reverse abuses. There was no hope of appeal after AH got the Enabling Act through the Reichstag. So he used legal processes and the government supported him all the way, albeit barely. Was it constitutional? No high court ever had the opportunity to rule on it, but the majority coalition used articles in the existing constitution. After the war, German lawmakers expressed opinions that the 1919 constitution was flawed and that's my take. The Nazis used a flawed constitution, Germany's first attempt at democracy after a disasterous war, to lawfully establish authoritarian rule in Germany. Plainly put, the Weimar constitution was ineptly written, "seeded" with a back door to totalitarian, autocratic rule similar to what the monarchs enjoyed before the war. Wyss 14:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well , actually it doesn't answer the question . The question is whether any Decree coulld legally go further than the Enabling Act  clause 2 , protection of the Reichstag  or did  before it (ie in the Fire Decree) ? Bullying obviously was in existence , but I am only asking this limited question , as to how  EAct 2  could be weaker than decree 48 . Did Decree 48 have a protection-of-the-Reichstag-institution-notice ? Did the  Constitution have the same as EAct 2 , ditto . If there was a seed I'd like to read it . I note a link to the full texts in German  of the Fire Decree so perhaps you would be so good as to  study it -someone- and let us know ., or shall I get my translator in  ?Famekeeper 17:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This is plainly controversial. We all know their application of the law was unethical and abusive. We know the communists were bullied out of the government. However article 48 was so sweeping in its language that the Nazis (and others) easily identified it as the swiftest means to legally undermine the constitution. To reduce this discussion down to "legal" or "illegal" is sophistry. Laws can be "wrong." Laws can be poorly written. Article 48 was a backdoor to dictatorship. If one characterizes AH's takeover of the German government as "legal" that doesn't imply an endorsement, but only a method or tactic. Meanwhile, no high court ever had an opportunity to render a judgement under German law and the vast majority of Germans accepted the Enabling Act throughout the 1930s. Why the controversy? In my view, it's an unwillingness on the part of some people to accept that undesireable and harmful things can happen through skillful politics and the application of badly written laws, combined with a misunderstanding of what law is. Wyss 15:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article 48 of the Constitution

message: Well , no I don't say I know that their  moves were illegal or abusive as you write , I'm not assuming anything , except that what I cannot see reason for , needs reason .  I see  throughout the nazi/germany pages there is simply ref,. to the power and its use, but no definition  of the power to include deputies. Opponents yes, communists (ie  anyone , except a Reichstag Dep  with immunity) yes .  But  I find it hard to accept a history that does not explain itself  , nor a law that is at odds with  the law . 
Humanitas- I don't know whether their timeline is the same as MegaMemex, this link is  to Hum Org in fact,... they an industrial magnates meeting in Goering's palace on Feb 20 th . 
I get back to magnates  yet see all through  ref to german capitalism being highly  structured  inside quasi social  form , and  therefore not  alike to  the international market , however  the corporations are def . multi-national a lot of them .  at least as important in historical terms as  concept of race , somewhere above  nation . 
McClenon seems to  warrant that changes were necessary to the various articles and that arbitration is not . Can't  see that arbitration does much , however ,  McC  kept wanting the  precis . So that's on hold , or whatever .
However I am  aware that  the guys who want Hitler's Pope just to refer to Cornwell , thereby seem to also allow for a much  tougher line against Pacelli than  that which I  interjected .
relevant to the above  , I see that in the  Fire Decree there is no reference whatever to Article 20 of the Wei Const. This  states that  the Deputies represent all the people , are ruled by their conscience alone , and subject to no ...forget the word, ?  control .
There seems to remain a considerable confusion in the various interlinking wikipages now . All refer back eventually to the Fire Decree , but the  Decree doesn't refer to Art 20 . 
The  Humanitas orgainsations time-
line mentions  Decrees, one on 4 Feb (Protection of the German People) forbidding meetings; the 28 (Fire Decree sic) they too see as allowing for Deputies' arrest  : []
Then 6 Mar an emergency Decree against the press etc . I don't see anything anywhere that up-ends art 20 . OK so KPD couldnt associate , but they could vote and be elected , as they were  on the 5th Mar , which confirms that the 28 Fire decree did NOT allow for  removal of Art 20  . The Eact equally did not  . seems quite extra-ordinary to me - and yes  I take your points about the situation , but I simply see no removal of no 20  and no possible contradiction with section 2 EAct  at the time it was passed . 
Ok so maybe some present Germany had better enlighten the world  . I am going to have to chase art 20 . I , change sub, offered old Str  to delete the crap  . Whenever I thought we had a reasonable balance , he did always  return with an editing onslaught , so I'm nervous of being amenable  .  Famekeeper 07:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article 20

message: Only just saw your assent to Arb, thanks.  listen to this from []
they seem to get to the nub of the  fire Decree , saying that unlike prev. use of Decr use for susp of rights , PvHin on 28 Feb didnt notice the absence of the Ebert  revived "Protective Custody Act" of 1916 ( they  have a typo on the date)This A guaranteed a judic'l hear'g wi'in 24 hours of arrest, the  right to  counsel, to inspect  relevant records,  appeal, and  compensation from Treasury  for erroneous arrests .
This seems to be from  the Trials  and goes on to say that since the courts couldn't  emit writs for habeas corpus et al , the germans were in the hands of the police who were in the hands of the Nazis who were in the hands of the  nugget cabal of evil men .
seems throroughly illegal to have denied  Deputies their freedom , even under supposed protection . It was contrary to art 20 and  even sect 2 EAct . The questions I raised  re this tyherefore still stand . Certainly the govt was an illegal  entity from 23 Mar , and the reichskonkordat is  illegal in consequence  as  it was not made by a legal entity , the vatican state , with any other legal state . This sure relates to BXVI , who people try and suggest I shouldnt bug  . Famekeeper 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protective Custody

message: The following text was in The Great Depression in Germany; as it seemed to be on the same topic as Weimar Republic#Economic_problems, I redirected it there and am copying the text here, for possible merging if it seems useful. JesseW 04:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content from [[The Great Depression in Germany]] 

message: Str is removing   the Cornwell stuff wholesale  as I write, its an immediate editing , claims  disproved , there is no source from him for this I can see to back it up . I am just letting the  Cornwell stand on the  link to the Vanity Fair abbreviation . This really aint a FK problem no more no more , but well, it is a problem and needs  whatever . I shall have to rustle up some IQ and you are first on my list . Sorry . I don't even want to deal with this or them  as I really don't want to strain my good faith .They just need to stick to the  rules . My own view is that the page needs protecting from my last edit . I have of course posted the source on discussion to join the 25 feet of previous  discussions . Wyss-it's time  I fear .  Famekeeper 16:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wyss and good faith needed at Pius XII