“The political establishment in Germany succeeded in maintaining the status quo through a policy of moderate reform.” How far do you agree with this judgment?
“The political establishment in Germany succeeded in maintaining the status quo through a policy of moderate reform.”
How far do you agree with this judgment?
The political establishment in Germany (comprising of the Kaiser, Chancellor, Budesrat, Junkers and the Army) certainly would have wanted to maintain the status quo during that period and it could be argued that they succeeded using moderate reform. The actions of von Bulow and Bethmann-Hollweg can be used as evidence of this. However, despite this, there are other factors that must be considered, for example Sammlungspolitik, Weltpolitik and Flottenpolitik as well as the consequences of Wilhelm’s dissolving the Reichstag as reasons for the status quo being maintained. Also, it could also be argued that the status quo was not maintained at all based on evidence such as the criticisms of the ruling elite or evidence that the Reichstag proved difficult to manage. Upon considering all of these points, it seems fair to conclude that although the semblance of the status quo was maintained for a time, it was eventually worn away by the opposition facing the political establishment.
The actions of Chancellor von Bulow should be the first point of consideration in support of this judgement. Chancellor between 1900 and 1909, von Bulow was an aristocratic Junker who had previously served as Foreign Minister and was the first Chancellor who won the Kaiser’s total trust, a feat performed by shameless flattery. As Chancellor, he did introduce some moderate reforms with the aim of maintaining the status quo and seemed to have reasonable successes. For example, the introduction of his new tariff law of 1902. By restoring a higher duty on imported goods, von Bulow hoped to encourage people to buy German produced wheat. This act proved highly important in creating the alliance of “rye and steel”; (between the Junkers and industrialists) German leaders had so eagerly been seeking. Other of von Bulow’s reforms
How far do you agree with this judgment?
The political establishment in Germany (comprising of the Kaiser, Chancellor, Budesrat, Junkers and the Army) certainly would have wanted to maintain the status quo during that period and it could be argued that they succeeded using moderate reform. The actions of von Bulow and Bethmann-Hollweg can be used as evidence of this. However, despite this, there are other factors that must be considered, for example Sammlungspolitik, Weltpolitik and Flottenpolitik as well as the consequences of Wilhelm’s dissolving the Reichstag as reasons for the status quo being maintained. Also, it could also be argued that the status quo was not maintained at all based on evidence such as the criticisms of the ruling elite or evidence that the Reichstag proved difficult to manage. Upon considering all of these points, it seems fair to conclude that although the semblance of the status quo was maintained for a time, it was eventually worn away by the opposition facing the political establishment.
The actions of Chancellor von Bulow should be the first point of consideration in support of this judgement. Chancellor between 1900 and 1909, von Bulow was an aristocratic Junker who had previously served as Foreign Minister and was the first Chancellor who won the Kaiser’s total trust, a feat performed by shameless flattery. As Chancellor, he did introduce some moderate reforms with the aim of maintaining the status quo and seemed to have reasonable successes. For example, the introduction of his new tariff law of 1902. By restoring a higher duty on imported goods, von Bulow hoped to encourage people to buy German produced wheat. This act proved highly important in creating the alliance of “rye and steel”; (between the Junkers and industrialists) German leaders had so eagerly been seeking. Other of von Bulow’s reforms