AQA 7042 · 2O · R09 - The economic, social and political impact of the Depression: elections
Trace how the Depression brought economic contraction, social hardship and political polarisation in 1929–32. Compare the policies of Brüning, Papen and Schleicher, and explain how presidential government converted economic pressure into weaker parliamentary rule.
From international crash to German contraction
The Depression reached Germany through vulnerabilities that already existed. During the later 1920s, German banks, businesses and public bodies had relied heavily on foreign lending, much of it from the United States. After the American financial crash of 1929, lenders withdrew funds or refused to renew short-term loans. German banks and firms therefore faced a credit shortage just as international demand was falling.
Economic depression
An economic depression is a prolonged and severe decline in production, investment, income and employment. It is deeper and longer than an ordinary downturn.
The economic mechanism matters more than a list of falling figures:
- foreign credit became scarce;
- banks and businesses restricted lending and investment;
- firms reduced production, failed or dismissed workers;
- unemployed and insecure households spent less;
- weaker demand caused further falls in sales, production and tax revenue.
This was a downward spiral rather than a single event. The 1931 banking crisis intensified it, but Germany had been contracting before the banks failed. It is therefore misleading to say that the Wall Street crash simply caused six million Germans to lose their jobs at once.
The scale was exceptional. Between 1928 and 1932, modern reconstructions estimate that German GDP fell by about 26%, industrial production by about 41% and investment by about 62%. Registered unemployment rose from about 1.4 million to an annual average of about 5.6 million. These estimates are summarised in Figure 1 of The Borchardt Hypothesis (2022), which identifies the historical series used. A point-in-time count reported by the Reich Labour Ministry on 15 February 1932 reached 6.127 million, roughly one worker in three, as recorded in the DHM chronology for 1932. The two unemployment figures are compatible: one is an annual average and the other records a winter peak.
Social crisis and an overloaded welfare system
Economic contraction became a social crisis because unemployment affected households, not only individual workers. Lost wages reduced spending on food, rent, clothing and leisure. Short-time working and fear of dismissal also spread insecurity among people who remained employed. Long periods without work could erode skills, independence and confidence, while queues at labour and welfare offices made the crisis visible in everyday life.
The impact was unequal:
| Group or institution | Main pressure | Why it widened the crisis |
|---|---|---|
| Unemployed workers and their dependants | Loss of wages and eventual reliance on lower, means-tested support | Household poverty deepened as unemployment lasted longer |
| Employed workers and public servants | Wage and salary reductions, higher taxes and fear of dismissal | Even households with work reduced consumption |
| Shopkeepers and other middle-class households | Falling customer demand, scarce credit and fear of downward mobility | Economic insecurity spread beyond industrial workers |
| Municipal governments | More claims for welfare while tax income declined | Local authorities had less money precisely when need was greatest |
The unemployment-insurance system created in 1927 had been designed for a much smaller number of claimants. As unemployment rose, a dispute over how to finance it helped break Hermann Müller's coalition in March 1930. Under Heinrich Brüning, contributions rose while eligibility and the duration of payments were restricted; from October 1931 the maximum period of unemployment benefit was reduced to twenty weeks. After insured benefit ended, many claimants depended on lower crisis relief and then municipal welfare.
Deflation added a further complication. Prices fell, so a person whose secure wage declined might not lose purchasing power in exactly the same proportion. An unemployed person whose benefit was cut, however, could face much harsher deprivation. The Depression therefore produced no single, uniform social experience. Its political importance lay in the breadth of insecurity and in the belief that established institutions were failing to relieve it.
From coalition government to presidential rule
The Depression did not automatically abolish parliamentary government. Political actors made choices within the Weimar constitution. Müller's broad coalition collapsed on 27 March 1930 when its parties could not agree how employers, workers and the state should meet the unemployment-insurance deficit. President Paul von Hindenburg then appointed Centre politician Heinrich Brüning as chancellor without first constructing a secure Reichstag majority.
Presidential cabinet
A presidential cabinet was a government dependent principally on the confidence of President Hindenburg rather than on a stable parliamentary majority. It used presidential emergency decrees under Article 48 to implement measures which could not pass normally through the Reichstag.
In July 1930, the Reichstag rejected part of Brüning's finance programme. Hindenburg issued it as an emergency decree; when the Reichstag voted to cancel the decree, Hindenburg dissolved parliament and called the September election. After that election failed to produce a workable pro-government majority, the SPD often tolerated Brüning: it did not support all his policies, but usually avoided voting down his government because it feared that another election would strengthen the anti-democratic parties.
Brüning pursued deflation, an attempt to lower prices and costs while balancing public finances. His governments raised taxes, cut public expenditure and welfare, reduced public-sector pay, and used decrees to lower wages, prices, rents and interest rates. They hoped to defend the currency, improve export competitiveness and demonstrate that Germany could not sustain reparations. Historians disagree over the relative weight of those aims and how much room existed for alternatives. Yet lower state spending and household income also reduced demand, helping to deepen contraction and unemployment.
An authentic source shows how the government presented this policy. In an appeal issued in Berlin on 5 June 1931, the Reich government argued that the need to maintain balanced public budgets justified the measures it had adopted. The short English rendering below comes from a translation transmitted by the U.S. chargé in Berlin on 8 June and published in the U.S. State Department's Foreign Relations of the United States, 1931, volume I, document 6, at the U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. The U.S. federal publication is public domain; the excerpt is abridged with an ellipsis.
The government argued that “maintenance of the balance of the public budgets and protection of our economic life ... justify the measures which have been adopted.”
For an historian studying Brüning's Depression policy, the content is valuable because it identifies budget balance and sacrifice as the government's public justification. Its official origin and accompanying publicity also reveal how ministers wanted Germans and foreign governments to understand the decree. Those same features impose limits: a defence of policy does not measure its social effects, prove that no alternative existed, or reveal every private objective. Purpose shapes the evidence; it does not make the source useless.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account