1921 in Germany

Overview

The year 1921, like its predecessors, was for Germany one of gloom, redeemed only by a few bright spots. Political life had not yet recovered from the shock caused by the overthrow of a form of government deeply rooted in the history of the people, and was still a prey to wild party strife which made the formation of a stable government difficult, and the labours of Parliament sterile. The German people in consequence was suffering from a severe mental depression which the almost feverish commercial activity of the country could not dispel, and which the pursuit of pleasure indulged in by certain classes could relieve only momentarily. There was, however, one item in the account of 1921 to which Germany could point with no small satisfaction. In spite of assaults both from within and from without, the democratic republic successfully maintained its ground, and firmly established itself in the confidence of the people. Many difficulties remained to be overcome, but the progress that was made was remarkable.

All the most important events in Germany in 1921 were connected with questions arising out of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, disarmament, reparations, trial of war criminals, and the plebiscite in Upper Silesia - questions which, from their harassing nature, kept both government and people in constant suspense and agitation.

Disarmament

On December 31, 1920, Marshal Ferdinand Foch had reported to the Allied governments on the progress of disarmament in Germany since the Protocol of Spa. According to this report 41,000 cannons or, with the inclusion of the substitute pieces, 70,000; 163,000 machine-guns, including their substitute barrels; 2,800,000 flying machine motors, and 16,000 flying machines had been destroyed. On the same day the French government, in a note to the German government, claimed that the stipulations of the Treaty had not been fulfilled. This claim was based less on the incomplete surrender of arms than on the fact that in East Prussia and Bavaria the civic guards (Einwohnerwehr) were still maintained and that the fortifications on the southern and eastern frontiers of Germany had not been wholly destroyed. In its reply the German government pointed out the disarmament actually completed. The Reichswehr numbered on that day 10,000 men less than the 100,000 to which it was to be reduced. Forty thousand officers of the old Army had received their congé, and only 4,000 remained. The Reichswehr was in possession of no heavy artillery, no airmen, and no air formations. Conscription for the Reich had been abolished, and officers and men of the reserve of the former service discharged. Fortifications on the western frontier, as well as the military railroad lines, had been destroyed. Only the fortifications on the southern and eastern frontiers were still in a fair state. Articles 180 and 167 of the Treaty of Versailles stated that the system of fortifications on the southern and eastern frontiers of Germany "shall be maintained in its existing state", and that the number and calibre of the guns on hand on the day of the coming into effect of the Treaty in the forts permitted must not be augmented. The German government wished to interpret this provision in such a way as to allow the retention of the guns of these fortifications in their places. But the Commission of Control of the Allied Powers insisted that this number should be reduced to 1,200. It was found necessary to accede to this demand, and an actual fortification of these frontiers ceased to exist.

The Protocol of Spa had threatened Germany, in case of failure to fulfil the tasks assigned to her, with new sanctions in the form of further occupation of German territory. But the threat was suspended, and the matter of disarmament was referred to the conference of ministers at Paris at the end of January. This conference not only drew up a plan for Germany's reparation obligations, but also fixed eight dates for the fulfilment of all disarmament demands. The most important of these dates were for the delivery of the remaining war material (February 28), the repeal of a new Reichswehr law, with the absolute abolition of conscription for the Reich and the single states (March 15), the surrender of all heavy and of two-thirds of the small firearms belonging to the organizations for self-protection (March 31), the disarmament of all ships in reserve (April 30), the complete disbandment of all organizations of defense and the surrender of the remainder of their arms (June 30), and lastly (July 31), the destruction of warships in the process of construction, with the exception of those transformed with the assent of the Allies into mercantile vessels.

A special difficulty was created by the attitude of the Bavarian government, which declared that the existing organization of the so-called "Orgesch" was absolutely indispensable to it, and maintained that this organization was not affected by Article 177 of the Treaty of Versailles, on the ground of which the disbandment was demanded by the Allies. A violent agitation amongst the Bavarian population was the result. It was in part directed against the Berlin government, and led many to think that a secession of Bavaria was imminent. This idea, however, was never seriously entertained; and when on May 5 the five ministers of the Allied Powers pronounced the ultimatum of London, in which the unconditional and immediate fulfilment of the disarmament conditions of the end of January, as well as the immediate trial of the war criminals was demanded, Gustav von Kahr, the Bavarian prime minister, yielded in the face of the threatened occupation of the Ruhr, and although holding to his former opinion in principle, offered no further resistance to the disarmament and disbandment of the "Orgesch".

The East Prussia militia had already been disbanded, and the other requirements of the Allies in regard to disarmament were fulfilled by the dates stipulated, so that on June 30 the government was in a position to order the head commissioner for disarmament to proceed with the liquidation of the Disarmament Commission itself. The Supreme Council, nevertheless, decided to retain the Military Control Commission presided over by General Charles Marie Nollet, and various complaints were lodged by this body even after disarmament was completed, for instance, as regards the use of Diesel motors, which it was alleged could easily be used again for submarines. The commission demanded the partial stoppage of the three German works engaged on peace production, on the ground that they could easily be adapted to war production. As the fulfilment of this demand would have entailed the dismissal of a number of men, both the management and the workmen protested energetically. The final decision of the commission had not yet been communicated to the German government by the end of the year.

Reparations

Instead of giving the full story of the reparations negotiations during the year, it will be sufficient here to describe their effects in Germany. At the conference of ministers which commenced on January 24 at Paris, a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 milliard gold marks in forty-two fixed annuities from May 1, 1921, to May 1, 1963, and in addition forty-two varying annuities each equal to 12% of German exports. This plan was communicated to the German government, along with the announcement that in case of non-fulfilment sanctions in the terms of the Spa Protocol would be applied.

This communication of the Paris conference caused intense agitation in Germany. Speaking in the Reichstag the foreign minister, Walter Simons, characterized the Paris demands as impossible of fulfilment, as an infringement of the Treaty of Versailles, and as involving the economic enslavement of the German people. He declared in the name of the government that the proposed plan could not be regarded as a basis for further negotiations. With the exception of the Communist Party, the leaders of the parliamentary groups endorsed the declaration of the government. The governments of the German provinces and states, and all the diets then sitting, expressed approval of the attitude of the central cabinet. Throughout Germany meetings were held by all classes of the people, as well as demonstrations of guilds and associations of every character, particularly labour organizations, protesting vehemently against the Paris demands and urging the government to stand firm.

The Brussels conference of the previous year was now continued, but no German experts attended, the reason being that their presence was regarded as indispensable at certain Berlin conferences which were being held at the same time. Through the chairman of the Paris conference, the German government were invited to send a representative on March 1 to London, to discuss the reparation question. The government accepted the invitation, but upon the express condition that German counterproposals should be discussed. Smarting from their experiences at Versailles and Spa, where the Germans had been forced to play a purely passive role, the German government desired on this occasion to ensure in advance a proper exchange of views. A journey through South Germany taken by Foreign Minister Simons afforded ample evidence of the unanimity of opinion amongst the population that the Paris demands should be rejected. The foreign minister in a powerful speech at Stuttgart declared amid a storm of applause that these demands were wholly unacceptable. He also expressed the opinion that in fixing the reparations, too much attention had been given to finance, and too little to the question of production.

While the public was thus declaiming against new exactions, the actual drafting of counterproposals was somewhat neglected, and thus it came about that hasty and, as it afterwards proved, defective and mistaken decisions were taken by the German delegates when actually on the way to London, under the leadership of Simons himself. Their proposals proved to be a great disappointment to the Allies, and the chairman of the conference, David Lloyd George, declared them to be based on an absolute failure to recognize the needs of the Allies. In a later sitting Lloyd George informed the German delegates that their proposals would not meet with serious consideration, and he allowed them a fixed time in which to declare themselves in agreement with the substance of the decision of the Paris conference, threatening in case of failure with the occupation of Duisburg, Ruhrort, and Düsseldorf by the Allied troops, the raising of tribute from the sale price of German goods in the Allied countries, and the erection of a customs frontier on the Rhine, under the supervision of the Allies.

Dr. Simons requested a further respite of one week, for consultation with the Berlin government, in case of the refusal of these terms. This request was not granted, and the chairman of the conference declared that the sanctions would be enforced on the following day. The conference then dispersed. The German delegates left the next day (March 8), and the three Rhine cities were occupied by French, British, and Belgian troops. Simultaneously the president of the German Reich issued a proclamation, countersigned by the chancellor, Konstantin Fehrenbach, to the effect that in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles their opponents had occupied further German territory, that resistance was impossible as the Germans were defenseless, but that, though right was trampled on by force, appeal might still be made to those who would lend an ear to the voice of justice.

The German delegates on their return from London were loudly acclaimed by the people, who, in unison with the government and a great majority in the Reichstag, declared themselves in agreement with their attitude. Although the methods of the German delegation were severely criticized by Rudolf Breitscheid, member of the Reichstag, in the name of the Independent Social Democrats, and by other speakers, condemnation of the London demands was general. Particularly in regard to the sanctions, against which the Reichstag protested as a breach of the Treaty and as an outrage, indignation ran high. By a vote of 268 to 49 (the minority being made up of Communists and Independent Socialists) a motion put forward by the government was carried to the effect that "the Reichstag approves of the government's having preferred to refuse the Paris conditions in London rather than submit to impossible demands."

The government protested to the League of Nations, but without effect. The military occupation of the three cities mentioned took place immediately, and was extended to other places as well, while the special customs frontier on the Rhine was drawn on two dates, April 20 and May 10. On each occasion protests were made from the German side which received no more attention than those which had preceded them. On the other hand, the action of the Reparations Commission in fixing further dates for the payment of enormous sums by Germany was scarcely noticed, public attention being almost wholly centred on the approach of May 1, the date assigned for the first payment of reparations.

In the meantime the new president of the United States, Warren G. Harding, had entered upon the duties of his office, and although formal peace with Germany had not yet been declared, certain conversations of Simons and America's unofficial representative in Berlin, Ellis Dresel, resulted in the formulating of a memorandum laying down the point of view of the German government. A polite note of response from the American government expressed satisfaction at the willingness of Germany to fulfil her obligations, and the hope that negotiations in regard to reparations would shortly be resumed. These conversations were merely a feeler put forth by the German government to see whether an understanding could not be brought about by means of the mediation of America. After a failure on the part of the pope to establish connections with Washington, the German government went so far as to request the president of the United States to accept the role of mediator and to promise to fulfil his any and every decision. The American government refused, but suggested that Germany should make fresh proposals for further negotiations. In this case the American government would "consider bringing the matter to the attention of the Allied governments in a manner acceptable to them in order that negotiations may speedily be resumed." Much valuable time was lost before the German government formulated new proposals, and in basing all their hopes on America, they missed the possibility of renewing negotiations with the creditors themselves. At last on April 24 the new German proposals were handed to the temporary chargé d'affaires of America. These were, to pay 200 milliard gold marks in annuities, or 50 milliards at present value (the annual sums to be regulated according to Germany's capacity for payment), and 4% interest on the capital of 50 milliards, to contract an international loan, the interest on which was to be paid by Germany, deliveries to be made in kind for reconstruction purposes, and, further, immediate payment of one gold milliard in cash. On May 3, convinced that she could not count on the Allied acceptance, America refused this proposal. She stated that she "strongly urges the German government at once to make directly to the Allied governments clear, definite, and adequate proposals which would in all respects meet its just obligations."

Resignation of Fehrenbach government

After this signal failure the cabinet of Fehrenbach resigned. In the meantime the Reparations Commission had fixed the sum of Germany's debt at 132 milliard gold marks, besides having stated that by May 1, when the German debt became due, a further sum of 12 milliard gold marks for reconstruction of demolished industrial works was to be paid. As a kind of guarantee, the commission demanded that the gold treasure of the Reichsbank and of certain other banking-houses should be transported to the occupied territory. Before these claims could be met, they were replaced by the ultimatum of the Allied governments which gave the German government till May 12, under threat of occupation of the Ruhr valley, to declare that they had decided unreservedly to fulfil the obligations drawn up by the commission, to accept all of its dictated guarantees, to carry out immediately and without reserve the measures prescribed in regard to disarmament, and, finally, to proceed without delay to try the war criminals.

After many days spent in trying negotiations which at times made it seem that it would be impossible to form any German government whatsoever, the minister of finance of the preceding government, Dr. Joseph Wirth, managed to form a coalition cabinet willing to accept the ultimatum as it stood (May 10). Members of the Centre, Majority Socialist, and Democratic parties constituted the greater part of this new cabinet, in which three vacancies were left temporarily, the other appointments being as follows: Dr. Wirth (Centre), Reich chancellor and minister of finance; Gustav Bauer (Social Democrat), vice-chancellor and minister of the Reich treasury; Friedrich Rosen, minister of foreign affairs; Dr. Georg Gradnauer (Social Democrat), interior; Robert Schmidt (Social Democrat), economic policy; Dr. Heinrich Brauns (Centre), labour; Dr. Eugen Schiffer (Democrat), justice; Dr. Otto Gessler (Democrat), defence; Wilhelm Groener, transport; Johannes Giesberts (Centre), post; Dr. Andreas Hermes (Centre), food; Walter Rathenau (Democrat), reconstruction. The three middle parties of the Reichstag, who desired a genuine democracy, supported the new cabinet. The German People's Party also was willing on certain conditions to join the coalition and to sign the ultimatum. But its leader, Gustav Stresemann, was restrained by exaggerated party considerations from joining the government. The chancellor summed up the situation in the words: "To save the German Reich and its union, to save German territory from invasion, and to retain German freedom, the government accepts the ultimatum." By 221 to 175 votes the attitude of the government was approved in the Reichstag, the majority being composed of the Centre, the Social Democrats, Independent Social Democrats, about half of the Democrats, and certain members of the People's Party. Upon receipt of the news during the night following May 10 by the general in command of the occupying troops at Düsseldorf, preparations for the advance march were discontinued.

A certain lull in the storm over the reparations question took place during the following months. The first gold milliard had been paid on August 31, and only the 33 1/3% fall in the value of the mark, which later depreciated to a still greater degree, indicated approaching peril. Although no further doubt was cast on Germany's will to pay, the Allies failed to repeal the military sanctions of March 9. The trade sanctions came to an end on September 30, but not without a burdensome commission of contract having been instituted in their place.

In order to further Germany's work of reconstruction in the north of France, the two ministers, Walther Rathenau and Louis Loucheur, conferred several times at Wiesbaden in August and September, in regard to the delivery by Germany of the necessary material. Germany agreed to deliveries which were to be credited as payment, but which were not to exceed the value of 7 milliard gold marks by May 1, 1926. During this period Germany was not to be credited on the reparations account yearly with more than 35 to 45%, after 1926 with the full amount of the deliveries, but under no circumstances with more than 1 milliard. The remainder was to bear 5% interest, and after 1926 to be put down to the account of the reparation annuities. On October 4 the Reichstag committee for foreign affairs accepted the proposed agreement by a large majority. Objection was raised by one member only, the German Nationalist, Karl Helfferich.

The growing recognition, caused by the cataclysmic fall in the value of the mark, that it would be impossible to fulfil the obligations undertaken or even to balance the accounts of the Reich and single states without violent encroachments on the national sources of wealth, decided certain German industrial and banking circles to place their private foreign credit at the disposal of the Reich. The reparation payments discharged in this manner were to be credited to industry for taxes, to amounts to be stated at a later date. This plan, designated by one of its inventors as "an heroic effort", and to which the Reichstag agreed, was well received at first. But certain tendencies which subsequently manifested themselves on the side of the great industrials militated against its realization. The startling demand was put forward that certain important institutions of state, such as the country's railroad system, should cease to be the sole property of the state and should be managed on the lines of private ownership. It was argued that otherwise such institutions would never yield a substantial profit. These conditions gave rise to much dispute, and met with strong opposition in public opinion. The question of the industrial credit was finally turned over to a committee which was to work out the plan in detail.

As a consequence of the ever-increasing hopelessness of Germany's financial position, the whole problem of her ability to pay and of the reparations in particular was brought up anew. The question of deferring the next term of payment was mooted. In order to meet its debt, the German government had attempted to negotiate a loan with a foreign banking-house of £25,000,000, and had been rebuffed with a pertinent reference to the reparation burden. Thereupon the government declared to the Reparations Commission in December that the two following instalments, due on January 15 and February 15, of 500,000,000 gold marks and about 250,000,000 gold marks respectively, could only be paid in part, and a delay was requested. Thus at the end of the year the problem of reparations had again become acute.

Trials of war criminals

Along with the questions of disarmament and reparation, the punishment of the German war criminals was a matter which kept Germany in continual anxiety and unrest. The government did everything in its power to fulfil the obligations which it had undertaken for the third time by accepting the ultimatum of May 5. Nine of these trials took place before the Supreme Court, from May 23 onwards. Several cases ended in an acquittal of the accused, but most were followed by imprisonment or incarceration in a fortress. An English delegation headed by the solicitor-general, Sir Ernest Pollock, attended the first trials, in which cases brought on the demand of England were heard. The other trials were similarly attended by a French or Belgian delegation. The acquittal of General Karl Stenger, who was accused by the French of having had French prisoners shot, caused the French government to recall its legal mission and the French witnesses. Aristide Briand in a public speech characterized these trials as a parody of justice, a statement against which the German minister of justice protested. As there was no further material to deal with immediately, the trials came to an end for the time being. A commission was appointed by the Supreme Council to examine the verdicts and to give a report on them.

Upper Silesia plebiscite

See main article Upper Silesia plebiscite.

After some negotiation the plebiscite was fixed for March 20, and resulted in 717,122 votes being cast for Germany against 483,514 for Poland. Most of bigger cities had voted slightly in favour of Germany, while the most of countryside voted for Poland. Almost 200,000 Silesian emigrants from Westphalia voted for Germany, which influenced the final result.

The splitting of votes of Silesia between Poland and Germany led to outbreak of violence called Third Silesian Uprising on May 2. Silesian insurgents captured most of the disputed area. After the cease-of-fire, Upper Silesia was divided by neutral commission that consisted from representants of 4 neitral countries. Poland obtained 965,000 inhabitants and 3,214 km2 while Germany retained 985,000 people and 7,737 km2. The main towns: Königshütte/Chorzow, Kattowitz/Katowice, and Tarnowitz, were given to Poland.

In order to mitigate the hardships likely to arise from the partition of a district which was essentially an economic unit, it was decided, on the recommendation of the Council of the League of Nations, that German and Polish delegates, under a chairman appointed by the Council of the League, should draw up economic regulations as well as a statute for the protection of minorities, which were to have a duration of fifteen years. Special measures were threatened in case either of the two states should refuse to participate in the drawing up of such regulations, or to accept them subsequently.

Resignation of Wirth government

After the official publication of this decision, Chancellor Wirth, considering that his task had been rendered impossible, resigned with the whole of his cabinet. After vain attempts to reorganize the cabinet on a broader basis by including members of the German People's Party, the president of the republic again entrusted Wirth with the formation of the cabinet, a task which he soon accomplished (October 26). Wirth's colleagues in the government were: chancellor and acting minister of foreign affairs, Wirth (Centre), vice-chancellor and minister of the treasury, Bauer (SPD); minister of the interior, Adolf Köster (SPD); minister of labour, Dr. Brauns (Centre); minister of food supply and agriculture, and at the same time acting minister of finance, Dr. Hermes (Centre); minister of defense, Dr. Gessler (DDP); minister of transport and communication, Groener; minister of the postal services, Giesberts (Centre); minister of economy, Schmidt (SPD); minister of justice, Dr. Gustav Radbruch (SPD). The Democratic Party did not join the coalition, but allowed Dr. Gessler to continue his membership of the cabinet as an expert adviser.

In the sitting of the Reichstag of October 26, the chancellor made a speech at the end of which he expressed the views of his cabinet in the following declaration: "The German government sees in the territorial and economic dictates of the Entente not only an injustice which the German people has no power to oppose, but also an infringement of the Treaty of Versailles, an upsetting of the decision arrived at in Geneva and accepted by the chief Allied Powers. Against this injustice with the situation which it creates the German government makes the most solemn protest in the name of international law, the shield of the oppressed. It is only on account of the threats expressed in the note, and the desire to avoid as far as possible the misery which would otherwise light upon the Upper Silesian industrial district that the German government consents to nominate the delegates as required by the dictate of the Powers, without thereby abandoning its previous standpoint."

A vote of confidence in the new government was passed by 230 votes to 132, the minority consisting of the two parties of the right and the Communists. The government informed the Allied Powers of the nomination of delegates in a note which almost verbally embodied the declaration pronounced by the chancellor in the Reichstag. The former minister of justice, Eugen Schiffer, was nominated as German delegate for the negotiations with Poland, with the former secretary of state, Dr. Lewald, as his deputy. The commission met in November under the former Swiss federal councillor Felix Calonder as president, and it apparently did fruitful though quiet work.

State of German finances

Dr. Wirth and Dr. Hermes, who successively held the post of minister of finance in July and October, gave a deplorable account of the finances of Germany. The first supplementary budget for 1921 ran to 48,500 million marks. Up to the introduction of the second supplementary budget in October the receipts had amounted to 61,200 million marks, while the expenditure had risen to 65,800 million marks, of which 55,100 millions were spent in executing provisions of the treaty of peace. This meant a deficit of 53,100 million marks in the ordinary budget. The revenue on account of the supplementary budget was declared in July at 10,500 million marks and the expenditure at 59,680 million marks, so that 49,180 million went to swell Germany's debt as an uncovered deficit. By October the deficit had risen to 57,000 million marks, and the total deficit was then 110,000 million marks. Included in this was a subvention of 37,900 millions to the administration of the ports and railways.

The burden of taxation entailed by the requirements of the Treaty is a variable factor because of the fluctuation of the exchange. The payment of a fixed annuity of 2 milliards of gold marks and of an export-duty of 26% amounting to 1.3 milliards of marks meant an outlay of 53 milliards of paper marks by the end of June, with an addition of 8.5 milliards for the expenses of the troops of occupation. The consolidated debt amounted to 78,350 million marks on May 31, the floating debt to 199,134 million marks, and other liabilities to 44,955 million marks. In July the permanent yearly requirements were estimated at 160,000 million marks. A third supplementary budget presented to the Reichstag in December declared for 1921 a deficit of 161,600 million marks, a sum which the new taxes proposed in the Reichstag, and estimated to produce 42,000 million marks, were totally inadequate to cover.

Sharp criticism was levelled in Parliament and in the press against the extreme slowness with which taxes long overdue were being collected, a regrettable state of affairs which was partly attributable to the overworked condition of revenue and taxation officials. The voting of the new taxation necessary was also proceeded with very slowly. The sensational drop in the value of the mark made the financial position still more deplorable, and produced at the end of the year an unprecedented rise in prices. It also led to a positive inundation of the large western towns with buyers from the countries with high exchange. This resulted in Germany being drained of goods without receiving a fair equivalent. The stimulus given to trade and industry, though it certainly reduced unemployment to a minimum, was no compensation, because the export of manufactures involved a continual decrease of German assets.

Communist rising and right-wing violence

In spite of the rise of prices and the sufferings of a large class of the population, the stability of the state was not shaken. There was indeed a serious Communist rising in March in central Germany, accompanied by violence, murder, and pillage, but the executive power soon mastered the rising with the ordinary forces at its disposal. Max Hölz, the leader of the insurrection, who was said to have terrorized the population of the Saxon Vogtland by robbery and arson, was captured and tried before a special court in Berlin, which sentenced him to imprisonment for life and loss of civic rights. The rest of those involved in the insurrection were also tried by special courts and condemned to imprisonment for varying periods. A large proportion of those who took a subordinate part in the insurrection were amnestied.

On the other hand, the supporters of a royalist and military system, including naturally very many of the 40,000 ex-officers of the old army as well as a not inconsiderable proportion of country landowners, higher officials, and the middle classes in the towns, did not openly rise against the republic. But their manifestations on national holidays of civil or military character during the summer proved that under the surface they harboured strong anti-republican sentiments. Insults to the new black, red, and gold German flag and bitter attacks on the representatives of the republic in the press and in public speeches became more frequent. Two political murders which appeared to be a product of this spirit showed that the political temperature had risen dangerously. In June, Karl Gareis, the leader of the local Independent Socialist Party, was murdered at Munich, and on August 25 occurred the treacherous murder of Matthias Erzberger, the former minister of finance, who had concluded the armistice with the Allies in 1918 and had worked energetically in June 1919 for the acceptance of the Peace of Versailles.

The murderer of Gareis could not be discovered, but it was widely taken for granted that the murder was a political act. Erzberger's murderers were identified in two young men, apparently nationalist fanatics, one of whom was a clerk named Schulz, and the other a student of law named Tillessen, but it was not found possible to arrest them. It is, however, officially claimed that the authorities have, through various arrests, secured copious material concerning secret societies with tendencies dangerous to the state.

Both murders, especially that of Erzberger, created an extremely bitter feeling among the republican parties, particularly the working classes. Public demonstrations were held in favour of the republic, and both Socialist parties took steps to draw the attention of the chancellor to the dangers of the situation, and to demand energetic measures against those who had organized the agitation and who were to be considered morally responsible for the recent crimes. These general demands were supplemented by a number of concrete suggestions for the improvement of administration and justice on democratic lines.

On August 29, the president issued a decree, based on Article 48 of the German constitution, authorizing the suppression up to a period of fourteen days of periodicals publishing articles inciting to violence against representatives of the people or to disobedience against the law, or supporting or praising such action or casting contempt on the organs of government, and the prohibition of meetings on similar grounds. The decree was applied in so dictatorial a manner that it provoked great opposition on all sides, and it was repealed on December 24 by a vote of the Reichstag after being in force barely four months. Generally speaking it had become more and more manifest that even the less republican part of the population, whether monarchist or communist, desired to attain their ends by constitutional means rather than by new risings. A peculiar light was thrown on the Monarchist Party in Germany at the trial of Traugott von Jagow, who had been police president of Berlin, and of two accomplices, for having taken part in the Kapp insurrection in 1920. Von Jagow was condemned to five years' incarceration in a fortress, but the two others were acquitted, because they could not be proved to have been "leaders" and therefore were covered by the amnesty. All the defendants and witnesses, among whom General Erich Ludendorff was conspicuous, showed great anxiety to make their participation in the undertaking appear as harmless as possible. Nobody would admit that he had undertaken anything against the constitution.

Royal deaths and Bavarian affairs

The year witnessed the demise of three personages belonging to old royal houses of Germany. On April 11, Auguste Victoria, the former German empress, died at Doorn, Holland; on October 2, Wilhelm II, the former king of Württemberg; and on October 18, Ludwig III, the last king of Bavaria. All three funerals were attended by large crowds. At the funeral of King Ludwig, the former Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria issued a proclamation exhorting the Bavarian people to loyalty in terms so ambiguous as almost to sound like a formal assertion of his own claim upon the throne.

Prince Rupprecht in his proclamation sought to appeal to the spirit of particularism which had animated Bavaria almost since the creation of the republic. The Bavarian Minister-President, Gustav von Kahr, who had been particularly sharp in his opposition to the Reich, resigned on September 18, when he saw that the permanent committee of the Diet was trying to come to a compromise with the Reich, as it eventually succeeded in doing. A new Bavarian cabinet was formed on October 21 by Count Hugo von Lerchenfeld, who had hitherto been Chargé d'Affaires of the Reich at Darmstadt. The new minister, while always laying great stress on his loyalty to the Reich, has been no less careful to emphasize his particularism, and to warn against a too great sacrifice of independence. But that the idea of Germany's unity is inextricably rooted in the consciousness of the people as a whole, has been made evident by the numerous manifestations held to celebrate, on January 18, the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of the Reich.

Developments in the states

The elections which took place for several diets, though they nearly everywhere showed a certain decrease of Socialist and Democratic votes, yet mostly, as in Baden and Hesse, allowed the government coalition of Social Democrats, Centre, and Democrats to remain in power. Only in Prussia the coalition was no longer able to maintain itself after the new elections. The Diet elected as president of the cabinet Adam Stegerwald, a member of the Centre Party. But his efforts, which were continued from spring till autumn, to form a government on a broader basis including the German People's Party, failed on account of the opposition of the Social Democrats. Stegerwald accordingly resigned on November 1, giving way to a cabinet formed of Social Democrats, Centre Party, German People's Party, and Democrats, and headed by the former Socialist minister of agriculture, Otto Braun. The Diet gave a vote of confidence to the new government by 198 votes to 99, the minority being composed of German Nationals and Communists.

The elections for the town council of Greater Berlin, held in the middle of October, ended in a defeat of the Socialist parties. In the course of the summer various attempts, in which Philipp Scheidemann was prominent, were made to bring the Independent Social Democrats and the Social Democrats closer together, but they did not lead to any result.

Social Democratic conference

On September 18 the annual conference of the Social Democrats began at Görlitz, and a resolution was carried in which the party expressed its readiness to cooperate with other parties on the basis of the following minimum programme: loyalty to the republic, maintenance of the national right of self-government, democratization and republicanization of the administration, of the Reichswehr, and all organs of government, further development of social legislation, a policy of international understanding, loyal fulfilment of the Peace Treaty within the limits of the nation's ability, and taxation of property to the utmost limit in order to raise the money required. The Independent Social Democratic Party was sounded as to its willingness to cooperate with other parties in forming a government, but gave no definite reply. A cleavage took place in the Communist group after the insurrection in the spring. A number of their leaders, among whom were Paul Levi, Clara Zetkin, Ernst Däumig, and Kurt Geyer, left the party and formed a group of their own. To convince the Moscow Internationale of the justness of their own point of view, they forwarded to that body confidential material with regard to the insurrection in March. These secret papers fell into the hands of the government, and were found to contain disclosures of a highly compromising nature, which showed that the Communist Party leaders had played most foully with the lives of their own comrades. In consequence of this, sympathy with Communism cooled down considerably even among the working classes.

Occupied Rhineland

In the occupied territories of the Rhineland, the edicts of the occupation authorities, especially the French, led to many conflicts between them and the German administration. The German commissioner, von Stark, who had several times protested against decrees of the Inter-Allied Rhineland Commission, was threatened with expulsion by the president of the commission, and to avoid this he resigned voluntarily. His successor, the Prince of Hatzfeld-Wildenburg, was only admitted after long negotiations, and on condition that he promised to abstain from all obstruction and to cooperate loyally with the Rhineland Commission. Complaints, however, of arbitrary decisions of the commission have continued to abound, especially in regard to the execution of justice and the administration of schools. Up to March 31, the cost of the occupation to Germany was 4 milliards of gold marks and 7 milliards of paper marks.

Foreign affairs

Some important agreements and treaties with foreign states have been concluded during the year. On May 6 an economic agreement was concluded with the Russian Soviet Republic, and a German delegation under Professor Kurt Wiedenfeld was sent to Moscow. Peace with the United States was signed in Berlin on August 25, and was ratified by the German Reichstag on September 30 and by the American Senate on October 19. A treaty with China, proclaiming a state of peace between the two countries, was made on May 20. A treaty concluded with Switzerland on December 3, concerning a court of arbitration, marks a new departure in international law. A series of economic treaties with the Czechoslovak Republic, with Italy, and with Yugoslavia must be added, as well as a treaty of preference with Portugal. An agreement with Great Britain concerning the partial restoration of German private property was concluded on January 12.