Weimar Republic 1919-1933, analogy to Iraq

No analogies are perfect yet they have great merit for historical study of precedent. IN this case the German Reich known as the Weimar Republic, struggled from its inception in the rubble and chaos of post WWI Germany to establish itself ultimately failing. A study of the internal conflict to establish a Democracy where one had never existed before and the chaotic struggle between communist, socialist, the paramilitaries, the Army and the weak central government could contribute to our current conflicts.

In a way it can be used as a proof source for what could happen if their was no force of Occupation in Iraq. At least with the occupation the US retains a good deal of 'say' in what happens to the Government of Iraq. Perhaps preventing the rise of a Nazi like regime.

A decent summary of the conflict is encapsulated at this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic
"For the next five years Germany's large cities suffered political violence between left-wing and right-wing groups, both of which committed violence and murder against innocent civilians and against each other, resulting in many deaths. The worst of the violence was between right-wing paramilitaries called the Freikorps and pro-Communist militias called the Red Guards, both of which admitted ex-soldiers into their ranks."

But that is just a summary, their are many good books on the history of Weimar, the post WWI German Army, the FrieKorps and the Spartacus (Spartacist) Movement and the various Pustch that occured.

A good source for the Post WWI movements is the: http://www.firstworldwar.com/index.htm

This could also provide fuel for an argument as to why occupation/foriegn assistance are useful in maintaining stability and preventing the rise of Nazi/Bath party like organizations in the wake of war.
-T

Interesting analogy, especially as both countries had minimal previous history of parliamentary democracy. But the sectarian issue, i.e. is Iraq even capable of being a coherent, unified multi-ethnic state without a dictator in charge, is a huge difference.

I see that point but am looking more towards a future state. Weimar and the Current Iraqi Gov't have similiar weaknesses. Weaknesses that can be exploited by the unscrupulous: be they sectarian or socialist and communists. In the end of the Weimar era a brutal dictator assisted partially by militia forces who promised greater security and economic recovery took control. The anaolgy I see is from chaos and weak democracy rises (or potentially rises) dictatorship. By keeping U.S. forces in country we prevent the rise of the dictator, giving the fragile democracy a chance to survive.--T

TROUFION has proposed an interesting analogy, one that I think resonates due to the chaotic and decentralized nature of the Radical Right and the divided Left ( Social-Democrats vs. Communists and revolutionary socialists and anarchists) in Germany at the time. However, I think the differences are much more significant than the similarities. For example:

• The Weimar Republic was a defeated state but the state itself, although weak, was intact, fully legitimate and resilient, unlike Iraq.
  
• German nationalism was an overwhelming unifying force in German society, despite pockets of Bavarian separatism and Leftist extremism.
  
• The Reichswehr was a state within the state that, under von Seeckt, supported the elected government against all challengers, right and left.
  
• The Reichswehr leadership also leashed elements of the Radical Right through subsidies to organizations like Stahlhelm using active and former Army officers like Ernst Rohm as bagmen.
  
• International commissions grounded in the Versailles Treaty system and League of Nations were able to compel the German government to disband the Freikorps units.
  
• Germany, if not a fully democratic society under the Wilhelmine Empire, prized order and the rule of law. Educational levels and the degree of industrialization were among the highest in Europe.
  
• The Freikorps, even the notorious Ehrhardt Brigade that launched the Kapp Putsch, saw themselves as defenders of the traditional order in which they wished to be incorporated; on the extreme right only the Nazis were a revolutionary force.

In short, Iraq enjoys few of the advantages of Weimar Germany after WWI

Quote:

---

In the end of the Weimar era a brutal dictator assisted partially by militia forces who promised greater security and economic recovery took control. The anaolgy I see is from chaos and weak democracy rises (or potentially rises) dictatorship. By keeping U.S. forces in country we prevent the rise of the dictator, giving the fragile democracy a chance to survive.

---

Frankly I think there are many in the U.S. who would welcome an Iraqi strongman who could crush the insurgency and unite the country. No such figure exists and conditions make the rise of such a man high improbable.

As Zenpundit mentioned, German nationalism provided a powerful ideological glue that held the country together and, in a highly toxic form, gave rise to Hitler. No such nationalism exists in Iraq any longer, and indeed the trend is in the opposite direction --- towards regional fragmentation and sectarianism. In Weimar Germany, both the Left and the Right sought to seize control of the central state and dominate the country. In Iraq, the factions are engaged in a very bloody contest for territory and resources --- there is hardly any central state at all, and effective control of the entire country is out of reach.