Neither War nor Peace: The Early Struggles of the Republic

  • A. J. Ryder


On the same day (28 October) as the Kaiser gave the royal assent to the new constitutional reforms an event occurred which disrupted the smooth transition from authoritarian to parliamentary government. Sailors in the Imperial Navy at Kiel disobeyed orders to put to sea, defied their officers and hoisted the red flag. They believed (with good reason) that the object of the exercise, planned by the Admiralty, was to provoke a suicidal battle with the much stronger British fleet. After being confined to harbour for over four years, and knowing that the war was irretrievably lost and an armistice imminent, the crews refused to sacrifice themselves for a conception of honour they did not share. The Admiralty’s decision had been taken without the knowledge or approval of the government, and was a breach of the spirit, if not the letter, of the new democratic regime which put the army and the navy for the first time under a civilian minister. The admirals had misread the temper of their men, which was by now that of the country. Sailors on shore made common cause with those on board, and Kiel was soon in the hands of a sailors’ council. Troops sent to restore order went over to the rebels. Two members of the Reichstag (Haussmann, a Progressive, who was a minister in Prince Max’s cabinet, and Noske, the right-wing Socialist) who hastened to Kiel to deal with the mutiny came to terms with its leaders, but could not prevent the contagion from spreading along the coast to the ports of Cuxhaven, Bremen and Hamburg and inland to the Ruhr.


Foreign Minister German Government Left Wing Peace Treaty Passive Resistance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 11.
    E. Kolb, Die Arbeiter-Räte in der deutschen Innenpolitik, 1918–19, p. 280. See also Kolb for a general discussion of the ‘missed opportunity’ presented by the workers’ councils and for a criticism of Ebert’s negative attitude to them.Google Scholar
  2. 14.
    F. L. Carsten, Reichswehr and Politics, 1918–83, p. 61.Google Scholar
  3. 15.
    G. Feldman, Army, Industry and Labor in Germany, 1914–18, pp. 519ff.Google Scholar
  4. 18.
    W. M. Jordan, Great Britain, France and the German Problem, 1918–39, p. 36.Google Scholar
  5. 25.
    C. W. Guillebaud, The Economic Recovery of Germany, 1933–1938, p. 199.Google Scholar
  6. 26.
    R. N. Hunt, German Social Democracy, 1918–33, p. 252.Google Scholar
  7. Hunt,German Social Democracy, 1918–33, p. 182.Google Scholar
  8. 43.
    Graf Kessler, Tagebücher, 1918–37, p. 606. For the diplomacy of Rapallo see H. Gtaml, ‘Die Rapallo-Politik im Urteil der Westdeutschen Forschung’, V.J.Z.G. vol. 18 (1970) p. 366. Not everyone agrees with the interpretation of German policy at Rapallo given in the text. There is some evidence that the leaders of the German delegation, especially von Maltzan, the head of the East European department of the Foreign Ministry, were determined all along to come to terms with the Russians, and that the reasons given for the decision to sign the treaty were merely a pretext.Google Scholar
  9. 49.
    L. Kochan, The Struggle for Germany, 1914–45, p. 31.It does not appear that the Poles had any intention of attacking Germany.Google Scholar
  10. 55.
    H. Speidel, ‘Reichswehr and Rote Armee’, V.J.Z.G. No. I (1953) p. 9.Google Scholar
  11. 68.
    H. L. Poor, Kurt Tucholsky and the Ordeal of Germany, 1918–1935, p. 99.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© A. J. Ryder 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. J. Ryder
    • 1
  1. 1.St David’s University CollegeLampeterUK

Personalised recommendations