Hello, welcome to history here at Oak National Academy.

My name's Mr. Newton, and I'll be your teacher today guiding you through the entire lesson.

Right, let's get started.

Over the next few lessons, we will be thinking about our big inquiry question, "How did war impact Germany?" This is the question we will use to investigate what the conditions were like in Germany after the war.

In 1914, Germany was a towering force, confident in its power as a nation and an empire.

But by 1918, after four years of relentless war, Germany lay shattered, their once-mighty emperor abdicated, and a fragile new democracy, the Weimar Republic, emerged to face a storm of challenges.

Opposition at home, combined with the crushing legacy of the Treaty of Versailles and the burden of paying reparations created severe political turmoil that threatened the Republic's very survival.

How could a young democracy navigate such overwhelming adversity? By the end of this lesson, you'll be able to describe the political threats to the early Weimar Republic that emerged from both the left and right.

Before we begin, there are a few key words that we need to understand.

Nationalism is a devotion and loyalty, or showing strong support, to one's own country or nation.

To be authoritarian means demanding total obedience to those in positions of authority.

Freikorps, meaning "free corps", was a private army formed by ex-soldiers from the First World War.

And a paramilitary is a group which is organised like an army, but is not official.

Today's lesson is split up into three parts.

We'll first look at the political challenges that the Weimar Republic faced, and unpack what is meant by the political spectrum and the left and the right.

We'll then go on to look at the left-wing opposition to the Weimar Republic in the Spartacist uprising, before moving on to the right-wing opposition in the Kapp Putsch.

Okay, let's begin the lesson by looking at the political challenges from 1919 to 1923.

The abdication of the Kaiser and the collapse of the German empire ushered in an uncertain era, and in its place emerged the Weimar Republic, a fragile experiment in democracy, tasked with governing a broken and divided nation.

Between 1919 and 1923, this new republic found itself besieged by enemies on both sides of the political divide.

And if we have a look at the map on the left, it shows the results of the 1919 German elections, and we can see all the different coloured areas which represent multiple parties in the Reichstag.

This election map reveals the fractured political landscape of Germany.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

Which of the following best describes the political threats faced by the Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1923? A, exclusive attacks from right-wing groups? B, opposition from the military and neighbouring countries? C, peaceful protests advocating for social reforms? Or D, violent threats from both sides of the political spectrum? Pause the video, have a think, and then come right back.

Okay.

Welcome back, and well done if you knew the correct answer was D, violent threats coming from both sides of the political spectrum.

So the Weimar Republic had a difficult task of dealing with opposition and violence from both sides of the political spectrum.

Okay, let's continue.

To understand the challenges the republic faced, it is crucial to grasp what is meant by left and right in politics.

Look at the diagram showing the political spectrum.

The political spectrum is a way to organise different ideas about how society and government should work.

Using the spectrum, you can see it ranges from the extreme left, to the extreme right, with more moderate views in the middle.

In any society, there are many shades of opinion, and most people fall somewhere in the blue-colored area.

And as you can see, this can be within either the left or the right wing of politics.

So what do we mean by the left-wing or the right-wing in politics? These terms refer to two groups who hold opposing political ideas.

The left tends to be in favour of changing things, and traditionally the left wing has been a working class movement.

Their movement was a response to the inequality and the rigid hierarchy of a traditional society, usually dominated by a monarch, aristocracy, and a wealthy elite.

And for this reason, the left began as a movement to challenge the traditional order, typically pushing for change with regards to seeking greater equality, they want the country's wealth to be shared across all levels of society, and wanting better wages and rights for the working class.

They often advocate for workers to have more control.

But many people beyond the working classes also appreciate left-wing ideas as being a fairer way to run a country.

However, in extreme cases, the left are not happy with gradual, progressive changes, and they will seek radical and revolutionary changes to society, involving the destruction of traditional systems and replacing them with a worker's state.

In such scenarios, the extreme left may substitute the existing authority, such as a king or a dictator, with their own form of authoritarian control, essentially a workers' dictatorship.

The right, by contrast, prefers stability and continuity.

They value tradition, family, and community.

So they seek to conserve existing systems. So they're sometimes described as being conservative.

The origins of the right can be traced back to the traditional ruling classes who sought to preserve the systems and hierarchies from which they benefited.

However, over time, people from all social classes have appreciated right-wing ideas.

From their perspective, traditional institutions like monarchy and the family structure have carefully evolved over centuries.

They have proved their worth, they have survived the test of time, because they work and are resilient.

These systems are seen as essential foundations for a thriving society and community, and should not be altered impulsively without careful consideration.

In other words, these structures should not be changed on a whim because someone thinks they have a brighter idea.

In Weimar Germany, the right believed that the country was best served when people from all classes united behind nationalism.

They argued that individuals from different backgrounds could unite through a collective love for their country, that they could form one cohesive community that would be stronger and more resilient as a result.

However, in extreme cases, the right opposes democracy, viewing it as a threat to social order and tradition, and instead preferring authoritarian systems or strong leadership to maintain stability and enforce their vision of society on the people.

It's important to note that the political spectrum is a simplified way to understand political beliefs and ideologies.

In reality, politics is much more complex, with ideas and values often overlapping or not fitting neatly into categories.

However, to this day, a political spectrum like the one shown on the slide here remains a commonly-used tool to categorise political parties or people's political views in a way that's easier to understand.

Now that we have a basic understanding of the political spectrum, where do we place the leaders of the Weimar government, Social Democratic Party? The Social Democratic Party, or the SPD, was generally positioned on the left side of the spectrum.

However, it was a moderate left-wing party.

It supported gradual reform, rather than the revolutionary upheaval that the people further to the left of them would've wanted.

The SPD were aiming to balance social progress with stability.

In this way, they could please some people on both sides of the political spectrum.

And I'm sure you can see why that would've been a good thing, especially in the fractured political landscape of Germany at the time.

The problem was that in their attempt to please both sides of the political spectrum, they ended up wholly pleasing neither.

Both sides, left and right, though fundamentally different, shared a common hatred for the new Weimar Republic.

The SPD's moderate or centrist stance frustrated the left, as they saw the SPD as betraying workers by refusing to pursue a communist revolution, and the right, who viewed the SPD's democratic and reformist policies as undermining traditional values and national unity.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

And what I want you to do here is match the correct term with its definition.

And you can see there's a list of definitions on the left hand side, which you need to match up to the correct term on the right.

Pause the video, have a go, and come right back.

Okay, great! Welcome back.

So the first definition was to seek strong authoritarian rule.

And that's a definition which defines the extreme right.

And by contrast, the extreme left now, can be defined as those who seek radical changes involving the destruction of traditional systems. And the right can be defined as those who wish to maintain stability and traditional systems. And finally, the left can be defined as those who wish to have more control and better rights for the working class.

Okay, great.

Let's move on to the first part of task A.

What I want you to do here is complete the table showing the differences on the political spectrum.

And you can see that some parts have been done for you.

So in the first column, under "category", you can see I've listed all the different wings of the political spectrum.

And in the next column, the "beliefs" column, is where you need to give me a brief description of what each political wing believed in.

And then in the last column, you need to briefly describe what those beliefs look like in action.

What concrete actions would that political wing want to happen? So for example, in the first row, we've got the left wing, and they believe in equality and for the wealth to be shared and distributed across society.

So you need to now complete the box to the right of that, which can describe what equality or wellbeing shared across society might look like in action.

What would they advocate to happen because of those beliefs? Pause the video, complete the table, and then come right back.

Okay, great.

Well done for having a go at that task.

So your answers may have included the following.

So for the left, we'd already discussed how they believed in equality and wealth being distributed across society.

Now, the beliefs in action, how that would've manifested in reality, is that the left would advocate for better wages and workers' rights.

We move down to the next row for the extreme left, who believed that workers should actually take over and rule.

And because of that belief, the actions they would've taken would've been revolution and destroying traditional systems, and setting up a worker's state or a workers' dictatorship.

And if you move down to the next one, the right wing, they believe in stability and tradition and continuity.

And therefore the actions we would see is the right preserving existing structures, traditional systems such as the monarchy, the family structure, and in Weimar Germany, they would've enacted policies to unite people behind nationalism.

And finally, we look at the row for the extreme right.

Their beliefs often took them towards anti-democracy, they were opposed to democracy, and therefore their beliefs in action, the extreme right often wanted to have strong leaders and would set up an authoritarian state, having extreme control over all areas of life.

Okay, great.

Let's move on to the second part of task A.

And what I want you to do here is, working with your partner, discuss why both the political left and right opposed the Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1923.

So have a quick discussion, or jot some ideas down on a piece of paper, to explain why both the political left and right opposed the Weimar Republic.

Pause the video, have a quick discussion, and come right back.

Okay, great.

Welcome back.

Hopefully you had some great discussions and you may have discussed some of the following.

So both the left and right resented the Weimar Republic's centrist or moderate position.

It wasn't far left or far right enough for both sides.

So the right saw the Weimar Republic as promoting radical change, while the left felt it was not implementing enough change.

Furthermore, the Republic, which was led by the centre moderate-left SPD, supported gradual reform, which frustrated the left, who believed the SPD had betrayed workers by refusing to make more changes, or in the extreme, pursue a full-scale communist revolution, some real radical changes.

And finally, the right viewed the Weimar Republic as a threat to traditional values.

It was a new democratic system bringing policies of change.

And they wanted a system that preserved national unity and stability, or in the extreme, authoritarian rule.

Okay, great.

So (indistinct) the context of the broader challenges that the Weimar Republic faced, and we now understand that there's this tension between the left and the right wing of politics, and the Weimar Republic kind of stuck in the middle.

So now let's look into further detail of the specific left-wing challenge facing the Weimar Republic, the Spartacist Uprising.

In January, 1919, a left wing group known as the Spartacists led angry crowds into the streets.

They were inspired by the recent success of the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia, an extreme left-wing uprising.

And if we have a look at the photo on the left, you can see communist troops taking control of the government during the Russian Revolution.

The Spartacists in Germany were very much inspired by the events taking place in Russia.

The Spartacists were a radical communist group led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.

They wanted capitalism to be abolished, and for Germany to be ruled by workers' councils.

This threatened private property and business owners and the authority of the Weimar Republic.

Spartacists believed that the SPD had betrayed the workers that they were supposed to represent, and had sided with the old elites.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

What I want you to do here is complete the sentence with the correct missing word.

Pause the video, fill in the blank, and then come right back.

Okay, great.

Welcome back, and let's see how that sentence should have read.

"The Spartacist Uprising of 1919 was led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, who were inspired by the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia." Okay, let's continue the story.

Joined by rebel soldiers and sailors, the Spartacists took their revolutionary fervour to the streets.

And we can see an example of that in the photo on the left, as it shows a Spartacist street barricade in Dusseldorf, Germany.

The Spartacists seized key buildings and established workers' councils across many towns.

They sought to establish a communist-style government.

For a brief moment, it seemed the revolutionary wave would sweep across Germany and sweep away the fledgling Weimar Republic in the process.

However, the public fear of revolution drove many people toward right-wing groups, and many soldiers did not side with the Spartacists.

Many ex-soldiers were fiercely anti-communist, and had banded together to form vigilante groups known as the Freikorps.

Friedrich Ebert, the president of the Weimar Republic, desperate to maintain order and avoid the revolutionary terror which had spread across Communist Russia turned to the Freikorps for help.

The Freikorps were paramilitary groups formed by demobilised soldiers, soldiers released from service after the First World War.

These veterans were fiercely opposed to the Spartacists' vision of a communist Germany.

The Freikorps were loyal to the old order, an imperial Germany led by the Kaiser, which they'd fought to defend in the war.

This meant that the Freikorps mainly sympathised with right-wing ideas.

To these men, the Weimar Republic were November criminals who had betrayed imperial Germany by overthrowing the Kaiser and signing the armistice to end the First World War.

Yet, the Freikorps hated the communists more, and agreed to help Ebert and the Weimar Republic to crush the Spartacist uprising.

And in the photo on the left, we can see the Freikorps in Berlin around 1919.

And if you look closely, we can see the skull and crossbones emblem on the Freikorps tank.

And this emblem carried on the militaristic traditions of the empire under the Kaiser.

By adopting this emblem, the Freikorps presented themselves as loyal defenders of Germany's imperial past, upholding the values and authority of the old order.

The Freikorps and their emblem soon became a symbol of fear for left-wing rebels, such as those involved in the Spartacist uprisings.

Armed with military experience, the Freikorps waded into the streets with unchecked violence and brutality.

Revolutionaries were executed, including Luxemburg and Liebknecht.

Luxemburg's body was dumped in a canal.

By the 15th of January, the Spartacists were defeated.

The Freikorps, backed by the SPD, had sent a chilling message to other left-wing revolutionaries.

Though the rebellion was crushed, the Weimar Republic was still vulnerable.

This was because the communists still remained a threat to the German government.

Furthermore, the Freikorps planted a dangerous seed.

The Republic's reliance on a paramilitary force to defend itself against the left only emboldened the Freikorps, who saw the Weimar politicians as the betrayers of Germany's old order.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

Who did Friedrich Ebert turn to for help with putting down the Spartacist uprising? Was it A, allied forces? B, the Freikorps? C, the policekorps? Or D, trade unions? Pause the video, have a think, then come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew that Ebert turned to the Freikorps to help with the Spartacist uprising.

Okay, great.

Let's move on to task B.

And what I want you to do here is to discuss the threat posed by the Spartacist uprising and how it was resolved.

And I've got an extract here to help you to do that.

So let's read a Berlin shopkeeper's letter to a friend in January, 1919.

"The Spartacists have seized media and communication offices.

Reports of looting are widespread, and armed groups patrol the streets.

The Weimar politicians have lost control.

We'll soon live under a dictatorship of the workers.

The Spartacist Revolution will take away our businesses and our homes for the benefit of the state.

Only the honourable Freikorps can save us from these radicals." So hopefully that personal account feeds into the wider story of the Spartacist uprising we've covered in the lesson so far.

So use the extract and your wider knowledge to discuss the threat posed by the Spartacist uprising and how it was resolved.

Pause the video, have a quick discussion, or jot down some ideas, and then come right back.

Okay, great.

Welcome back.

So you may have discussed the following.

The Spartacists seized vital buildings, disrupted communication, and created chaos in Berlin.

So that's a real threat to the infrastructure, to the workings of the city, and would've been viewed as a threat.

We may have talked about the public fear.

Personal account talked about looting and armed patrols on the streets.

And of course, business owners would fear losing property under a communist regime, as under communism, the workers' state owned everything, and they would've distributed it out across society, as they didn't believe in private property.

So if you were a business owner or a homeowner, you would've feared a communist revolution.

But of course, there's this revolutionary threat in the background, that Spartacists wanted a communist-style revolution to overthrow democracy and the Weimar Republic to establish their own dictatorship of the workers.

And when it come to how the Spartacist uprising gets resolved, you may have discussed the weakness of Weimar to deal with this situation.

The uprising exposed the inability of Weimar politicians to maintain order, and they relied on the Freikorps, a right-wing paramilitary force, to violently suppress the uprising.

Okay, great.

So we've covered the left-wing challenge to the Weimar Republic.

Now let's look at the right-wing backlash, the Kapp Putsch.

So by 1920, the Treaty of Versailles had already left deep scars on Germany, and among its many humiliations, the treaty required Germany to drastically reduce the size of its military, including the disbandment of several Freikorps units.

Well the question is then, how do you think the Freikorps would react to a treaty demanding that they break up their group? Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

Why were the Freikorps ordered to disband? Was it A, the army deemed them ineffective in dealing with social upheaval? B, the Treaty of Versailles required a reduction in military forces? Or C, they were deemed as traitors for signing the Treaty of Versailles? Pause the video, have a think, and then come right back.

Okay.

Welcome back.

And well done if you know that the Freikorps were ordered to disband because the Treaty of Versailles required a reduction in military forces.

Okay, let's continue.

So, fearing unemployment, disbanded Freikorps brigades marched on Berlin, overthrowing the government in what came to be known as the Kapp Putsch.

"Putsch" means rebellion.

So the Kapp Putsch and the Freikorps' aim was to restore the Kaiser.

Have a look at the photo on the left.

It shows a Freikorps brigade entering Berlin during the Kapp Putsch, and we can see them waving a military flag, symbolising the former German Empire under the Kaiser.

So the problem for the Weimar Republic was now that their official German military sympathised with the Freikorps, as they were former comrades who had previously fought together in war.

People in the military were also on a similar position on the political spectrum, both sharing nationalist ideas.

Therefore, the military refused to fire on the Freikorps.

Many senior officers still longed for the days of Imperial Germany.

Freikorps turned to Wolfgang Kapp to act as their political figurehead.

Kapp had gained popularity as a right-wing nationalist leader who had long advocated for a return to an authoritarian government modelled on the old monarchy under the Kaiser.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

What was the goal of the Kapp Putsch in 1920? Was it A, to defend the Treaty of Versailles? B, to establish a communist workers' state? Or C, to restore the Kaiser to power? Pause the video, have a think, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew that the goal of the Kapp Putsch was to restore the Kaiser to power.

The Weimar government, powerless to stop the advancing Freikorps, and abandoned by the army, led Berlin.

And for a brief moment, it seemed as though the republic was finished.

However, the coup, or the rebellion, quickly faltered.

Not because of any military action, but due to the resolve of the German working class.

Have a look at the photo on the left.

It shows a protest in Berlin against the Putsch.

And the caption reads, "A quarter million participants." So clearly showing the pride in the amount of participants or the amount of support they have for this protest against the Kapp Putsch.

So what had happened? Trade unions and left-wing political parties who preferred the SPD's Weimar government to that of the old order called for a general strike to resist the Putsch.

Workers across Germany responded, bringing the country to a standstill.

Kapp's government quickly found itself unable to function.

After just four days, the Putsch collapsed under the weight of its own impracticality.

It couldn't function anymore.

Kapp fled to Sweden, and the Weimar government returned to power.

Okay, let's have another check for understanding.

Why did the army refuse to intervene during the Kapp Putsch? Was it A, they had been disbanded due to the Treaty of Versailles? B, they sympathised with the Freikorps and their aims? Or C, they were overwhelmed by Freikorps forces? Pause the video, have a think, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew that the army refused to intervene during the Kapp Putsch because they sympathised with the Freikorps and their aims. So although the Kapp Putsch failed, it highlighted the fragility of the Weimar Republic and the political divisions within Germany.

Assassinations were not uncommon, and in 1922, Walther Rathenau, the Republic's foreign minister, was assassinated by right-wing extremists.

Paramilitary groups multiplied as political parties resorted to hiring armed men, often ex-soldiers, to guard their meetings and intimidate opponents.

And in the photo on the left, you can see German Communist Party's paramilitary, the Rotfrontkampfer, or Red Front Fighters.

And we can see the soldier in the centre waving his fists.

And we can imagine how paramilitaries could be used to protect specific political events, but they could also be used to intimidate opponents and assert their presence, essentially bullying people into supporting their particular party.

So clearly all of this violence and intimidation is not a great environment for a democracy to thrive.

This climate of violence blurred the lines between politics and warfare, fostering an atmosphere of fear and mistrust.

And in this increasingly unstable and violent political environment, in November, 1923, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party staged the Munich Putsch, and attempted to overthrow the government, which ultimately failed.

And we can see a photo of Nazi paramilitaries in the main city square during the failed Munich Putsch.

Although the Munich Putsch failed, it brought Adolf Hitler national attention, and became a pivotal moment in the rise of the Nazi party.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

What evidence suggests that the Weimar Republic remained vulnerable during its early years? Select three correct answers.

A, assassinations? B, coups like Hitler's Munich Putsch? C, paramilitary clashes? Or D, widespread economic prosperity? Pause the video, select your three correct answers, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew the correct answers were A, assassinations, B, coups like Hitler's Munich Putsch, and C, paramilitary clashes.

Okay, great.

Let's move on to the final task, task C.

And I've got a statement here for you.

"Right-wing threats were more dangerous to the Weimar Republic than left-wing threats in the years 1919 to 1923." So the question here is then, how far do you agree with this statement? And of course, anytime you see the words "how far", it means the question is inviting you to give both sides of the argument.

So therefore, I want you to write one paragraph which agrees with this statement and one paragraph which disagrees.

Pause the video, have a go at the task, and then come right back.

Okay, great.

Welcome back, and well done for having a go at that task.

So there's many ways that you could have written your paragraphs, but compare your answers with what I have here.

So for your agree paragraph, it might have included the following.

"Right-wing threats posed a greater danger to the Weimar Republic because they had support from powerful institutions like the military, which were often sympathetic to authoritarian and nationalist ideas.

The Kapp Putsch of 1920 aimed to overthrow the Weimar Republic and restore the Kaiser to power.

Furthermore, the army refused to act against the Freikorps paramilitary, and the government was forced to flee Berlin.

Although the coup failed due to a general strike, it revealed the fragility of the Republic, and the right-wing's capacity to challenge its authority.

Additionally, right-wing violence was persistent, with right-wing extremists committing political assassinations such as the murder of the Weimar politician, Walther Rathenau." And for your disagree paragraph, you may have something that looks like the following.

"Left-wing threats were also a significant danger to the Weimar Republic.

The Spartacist Uprising of January 1919 was a direct attempt to overthrow the government and replace it with a communist dictatorship.

The violence and chaos in Berlin destabilised Germany, and sowed fear among the population.

These events highlighted the left-wing's revolutionary intent and ability to mobilise large numbers of workers.

Even after these uprisings were suppressed, fear of communism divided the country and pushed moderates towards supporting right-wing groups, exacerbating the Republic's instability.

Both left- and right-wing threats posed different but significant dangers to the Weimar Republic." Okay, great.

Let's summarise today's lesson, "Threats to the Weimar Republic from the left and the right".

The political spectrum in Weimar Germany was divided between the left, seeking equality and workers' control, and the right, favouring tradition and nationalism.

In extreme cases, the left sought revolution, whilst the right sought authoritarian rule.

Both left- and right-wing factions posed a significant threat to the survival of the Republic, highlighting Weimar's vulnerability.

The Spartacist uprising created chaos and public fear of revolution, driving people toward right-wing groups.

The Kapp Putsch and political assassinations revealed the right's willingness to overthrow the Republic.

The Republic relied on the Freikorps to suppress left-wing uprisings, exposing its inability to maintain order independently, and highlighting the prevalence of paramilitary forces.

Well done on engaging with today's lesson, and thank you for joining me as we explored the political challenges and unrest in early Weimar Germany.

I look forward to seeing you next time as we continue our inquiry into this fascinating period of history.

See you in the next lesson.