‘The Weimar Republic enjoyed a “golden age” of economic stability and social welfare in the
years between 1924 and 1928.’ Assess the validity of this view.
The ‘golden age’ of the Weimar Republic was said to have occurred between 1924 and 1928
whereby there appeared to be massive economic growth and prosperity, accompanied by
welfare reforms which galvanized the German state. This can be demonstrated by the new
economic plans and aid received from abroad, the introduc on of a new budgetary scheme
and the improvements within the welfare system.
A ‘golden age’ could be perceived to have occurred within the economy of Germany a er
the Dawes plan of 1924. Within this plan, the pressure of the repara ons from the Treaty of
Versailles was alleviated. Germany received a loan worth 800 million marks which further
helped the economy to recover and as a result led to the spike in economic growth within
this period. Although a period of economic growth did occur, in comparison to the other
major na ons such as America, France and Britain, Germany was far behind with only a six
percent increase which is compara vely dwarfed by Britain’s twenty three percent. This
demonstrates how economic growth within the Weimar Republic’s ‘golden age’ is overstated
and exaggerated. Not only that, but the limited economic prosperity which did occur was
only due to the foreign aid granted by America. This meant that if America were to forcefully
withdraw the loans (as seen within the Wall Street Crash of 1929) the economy’s growth
would stagnate and collapse. Therefore one could see how the economy was only
ourishing on the surface, this was believed by chancellor Stresemann who said ‘Germany is
dancing on a volcano’. This further portrays how fragile the German economy was and that
true economic growth did not occur independently thus demonstra ng that the Weimar
republic did not enjoy a ‘golden age’ of economic stability.
Economic stability was also restricted due to the Weimar Republic’s improvements within
the welfare state. Although considerable advancements were made within aspects such as
housing and unemployment schemes these came at a great cost to the government. In order
to fund this, Stresemann increased taxes and made 300,000 civil servants redundant. All this
did was make more Germans reliant upon the new unemployment insurance and the major
aw was that the scheme was only viable if unemployment was under 800,000 which it soon
went over. As a result of the new welfare schemes society as a whole bene ted due to
examples such as the sixty percent reduc on in homelessness alongside large state subsidies
for the development of new hospitals and schools. However this put further pressure upon
the German economy and ensured that the Weimar government was opera ng within a
budget de cit. This view is shared by Abelshauser who considered the ‘Weimar republic an
over-strained welfare state’ this was because in Abelhauser’s perspec ve the ckle
economic growth was insu cient to fund these social projects. Therefore it is clear to see
how although Germany did see a ‘golden age’ within social welfare, this ul mately
jeopardised the ‘golden age’ within economic prosperity and stability.
years between 1924 and 1928.’ Assess the validity of this view.
The ‘golden age’ of the Weimar Republic was said to have occurred between 1924 and 1928
whereby there appeared to be massive economic growth and prosperity, accompanied by
welfare reforms which galvanized the German state. This can be demonstrated by the new
economic plans and aid received from abroad, the introduc on of a new budgetary scheme
and the improvements within the welfare system.
A ‘golden age’ could be perceived to have occurred within the economy of Germany a er
the Dawes plan of 1924. Within this plan, the pressure of the repara ons from the Treaty of
Versailles was alleviated. Germany received a loan worth 800 million marks which further
helped the economy to recover and as a result led to the spike in economic growth within
this period. Although a period of economic growth did occur, in comparison to the other
major na ons such as America, France and Britain, Germany was far behind with only a six
percent increase which is compara vely dwarfed by Britain’s twenty three percent. This
demonstrates how economic growth within the Weimar Republic’s ‘golden age’ is overstated
and exaggerated. Not only that, but the limited economic prosperity which did occur was
only due to the foreign aid granted by America. This meant that if America were to forcefully
withdraw the loans (as seen within the Wall Street Crash of 1929) the economy’s growth
would stagnate and collapse. Therefore one could see how the economy was only
ourishing on the surface, this was believed by chancellor Stresemann who said ‘Germany is
dancing on a volcano’. This further portrays how fragile the German economy was and that
true economic growth did not occur independently thus demonstra ng that the Weimar
republic did not enjoy a ‘golden age’ of economic stability.
Economic stability was also restricted due to the Weimar Republic’s improvements within
the welfare state. Although considerable advancements were made within aspects such as
housing and unemployment schemes these came at a great cost to the government. In order
to fund this, Stresemann increased taxes and made 300,000 civil servants redundant. All this
did was make more Germans reliant upon the new unemployment insurance and the major
aw was that the scheme was only viable if unemployment was under 800,000 which it soon
went over. As a result of the new welfare schemes society as a whole bene ted due to
examples such as the sixty percent reduc on in homelessness alongside large state subsidies
for the development of new hospitals and schools. However this put further pressure upon
the German economy and ensured that the Weimar government was opera ng within a
budget de cit. This view is shared by Abelshauser who considered the ‘Weimar republic an
over-strained welfare state’ this was because in Abelhauser’s perspec ve the ckle
economic growth was insu cient to fund these social projects. Therefore it is clear to see
how although Germany did see a ‘golden age’ within social welfare, this ul mately
jeopardised the ‘golden age’ within economic prosperity and stability.
