Prussian strike

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Emergency Ordinance of the Reich President (July 1932)

With the blow to Prussia (also called coup in Prussia called) was born on July 20, 1932 by a first emergency decree of the President's executive, but not by a parliamentary majority backed government of the Free State of Prussia by the Reich Chancellor Franz von Papen as Reich Commissioner replaced. A second ordinance of the same day gave the Reichswehr Minister executive power in Prussia and restricted basic rights .

So that went public authority in the Prussian coalition under Social Democrat Otto Braun led the largest country in the German Reich to the Reich government of Franz von Papen on. All civil society as well as state possibilities of protest or resistance were declared illegal by the Reich President Paul von Hindenburg .

The consequences of the Prussian strike were the weakening of the federal constitution of the Weimar Republic and the facilitation of the later centralization of the Reich under Adolf Hitler . The main result, however, was the elimination of the last possible resistance of the largest German state to Papen's policy of establishing a "New State". This made Hitler's path to power much easier. The motives and chances of the events are controversial among historians.

Historical context

Discussion about a reorganization of the empire

The relationship between Reich and Prussia had been the subject of discussion since the late 1920s, with particular publicity on the part of the Confederation for the renewal of the Reich , to which Papen also belonged. The aim of this circle, founded by Hans Luther and named after him, was to strengthen central power, reorganize northern Germany, especially Prussia, and create an authoritarian presidential regime. Individual points of his program were the replacement of the government and parliament of Prussia by the Reich President, Reich government and Reichstag and the appointment of provincial commissioners by the Chancellor.

As early as 1928, a country conference of members of the Reich Cabinet and all of the Prime Ministers came to the “joint resolution” that the Weimar settlement of the relationship between Reich and Länder was unsatisfactory and required fundamental reform and that “strong Reich authority” was necessary. A constitutional committee was set up to work out practical proposals for constitutional and administrative reform as well as for economical financial management.

The reports were available on June 21, 1930. The four main demands in the presentation of Arnold Brecht , at that time Ministerial Director of the Prussian State Chancellery and "Architect of the Reform Plan", later the main representative of the Prussian government in the trial against the emergency ordinance:

  • to unite the central administration of the Prussian state government with the central administration of the Reich government,
  • to unite the regional and local Prussian authorities with those of the Reich,
  • To completely eliminate Prussia as a state or country
  • and to subordinate the thirteen Prussian provinces including Berlin as new states directly to the Reich government.

The reform efforts were mostly exposed to objections from Bavaria and Prussia.

Due to political developments, it was no longer possible to implement the program, but, as Everhard Holtmann explains, "The core elements of the reform package, such as the abolition of Prussia's statehood, were ... from now on used in a targeted manner in the domestic power struggle".

Papen's idea of ​​a "New State"

Papen's initiative for the Prussian strike must be understood within the plan to establish a “New State”, a concept that Walther Schotte and Edgar Jung in particular had propagated. They were not interested in favoring the National Socialists, but in creating an authoritarian pre-form of the monarchy , an authoritarian presidential regime with a chancellor who was dependent on the trust of the president and a representation of the people similar to the constitution of the empire with greatly restricted rights. Papen's long-term goal was to restore the Hohenzollern monarchy . The “New State” should take precedence over particular interests and create the necessary security, order and calm for economic development.

Situation in Prussia after the state elections of April 24, 1932

The Free State of Prussia had been ruled by a stable coalition ( Prussian coalition ) made up of the SPD , the center and the DDP since 1920 . In the Prussian state elections on April 24, 1932, the NSDAP won 162 and the KPD 57 (a total of 219 seats) out of a total of 423 seats. For the first time, all other parties together received only a minority of 204 seats. Without one of the anti-democratic parties, a government with a parliamentary majority could not be formed, which led to the fact that after the formal resignation of the entire previous state government - the Braun III cabinet  - it remained in office in accordance with Article 59 of the state constitution. This situation was similar to that of other states ( Bavaria , Saxony , Hesse , Württemberg and Hamburg ), which the Reich government did not deal with.

Procedure by Papen and Hindenburg

In Prussia, a center-right government made up of the NSDAP (162 seats) and the center (67 seats) with a majority of 229 seats was mathematically possible. Together with the 31 seats in the DNVP , this coalition would have had 260 out of 423 seats. Chancellor Franz von Papen strove for such a coalition ; but the NSDAP claimed power for itself. On June 7, 1932, Papen (who was not formally responsible) sent a letter to Hanns Kerrl , who was a member of the NSDAP, to replace the governing Prussian government with an elected one, which he could not guarantee due to the failure of coalition negotiations .

Thereupon Papen aimed at other possibilities: The first would have been the implementation of the long-debated imperial reform, which Prussia would have dissolved or divided up. Because this path would only have led to the goal in the long term, was difficult to achieve and highly controversial, Papen favored another option. He planned to appoint a Reich Commissioner to replace the previous government and, if necessary, to enforce this new order with the help of the Reichswehr . In a similar way, at the insistence of the right-wing parties and with the approval of Reich President Friedrich Ebert (SPD), the execution of the Reich was carried out in 1923 . In view of the democratically elected left-wing governments including the communists in Saxony and Thuringia , the forcible removal of governments was justified by the fact that peace and order were endangered in these countries. This justification was found for Prussia in the clashes between the SA, which had been re-approved by the Papen government, with the communists and social democrats, which culminated in the Altona Bloody Sunday on July 17, 1932 in the summer of 1932 . The civil war-like clashes and the unfortunate police operation differed noticeably from the Reich execution against Saxony in 1923. There had actually been doubts about the constitutional loyalty and the police's will to act on the part of the Saxon left-wing government; there could be no question of that in the case of Prussia.

Three days earlier, on July 14th, at the request of Papen, who had visited him with Interior Minister Gayl in Neudeck for this purpose , President Paul von Hindenburg had signed an undated emergency ordinance in accordance with Article 48 WRV . Through it he authorized the Chancellor to be Reich Commissioner for Prussia and enabled him to remove the executive Prussian government from office. Hindenburg left Papen to choose when to make use of the power of attorney. Papen chose July 20th. The third option, which would have been to wait and leave the leading minority government of Prussia in office and trust that it would get the situation under control even without a parliamentary majority, was not considered by Papen from the start.

Expiry of the Prussian strike

On Wednesday, July 20, 1932, at 10 a.m., at Papen's request, the Deputy Prime Minister Heinrich Hirtsiefer instead of the incumbent but sick Otto Braun, the Interior Minister Carl Severing and his colleague from the finance department, Otto Klepper , visited Papen in the Reich Chancellery. Papen announced to the constitutional ministers the content of the Hindenburg ordinance on his appointment as Reich Commissioner and the dismissal of the executive government that he was to decree. This dismissal is necessary because - according to Papen - " public security and order in Prussia no longer guaranteed". The representatives of Prussia protested against this: Prussia had not violated any obligation under the imperial constitution and imperial laws, but had done as much for security as other countries, although it had the most and greatest danger zones. So the Braun government denied the constitutionality of the emergency ordinance . Severing replied negatively to Papen's proposal to give up official business voluntarily: he “just give way to violence”. A year later, Otto Klepper reported in an article in the exile newspaper “Das neue Tagebuch” that after this sentence he had hoped Severing would defend himself, especially since Papen and the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Freiherr von Gayl, who were also present, seemed very insecure.

“I suggested that we interrupt the meeting with Papen for an hour to discuss how the Prussian government should proceed and went to the door. But Severing declared that he had nothing more to discuss with me and remained seated. Only now, after it was certain that no resistance was imminent, did State Secretary Planck receive the order to put the Reichswehr Command on the march. "

After the meeting, the Prussian ministers left the Reich Chancellery.

On the afternoon of the same day, Severing, who commanded 90,000 Prussian police officers, had himself expelled from his office and ministry by a delegation consisting of the newly appointed police chief von Papen with two police officers. As early as midday, Papen and the Reichswehr - at that time still 100,000 strong - had declared a state of emergency and, after the Prussian government had withdrawn, occupied the Prussian Ministry of the Interior, the Berlin Police Headquarters and the headquarters of the Police .

Police Vice President Weiß (right) and the commander of the Heimannsberg Police Department (left) who were arrested during the Prussian strike. (The photo was taken earlier.)

The Berlin police chief Albert Grzesinski , his deputy Bernhard Weiß and the commander of the police force, the politician close to the center, Magnus Heimannsberg , were arrested and only released the next day when they had signed an undertaking not to undertake any official acts.

This development continued well into 1933. The interventions against the police in Prussia paralyzed a substantial part of the Weimar Republic's power apparatus. There was also no resistance because the SPD executive board had already decided on July 16 not to defend itself with the available police means because there could be a civil war.

Members of the first commissioner government

Reaction of the Prussian state government

The Prussian government refused, despite its previous assurances, to react to the violence officially justified by state emergency and emergency ordinance with counter-violence. The use of the Prussian police and the Reich banner was rejected. Nonviolent resistance in the form of a general strike was also rejected because it seemed hardly feasible in view of the unemployment in the world economic crisis . Nor did a call for civil disobedience by officials see any prospect of success . In all cases of open resistance, the government expected civil war to break out, especially in the context of the armed clash between the Reichswehr and the state police, which they wanted to avoid at all costs. In addition, the legal process had not yet been exhausted.

Therefore, on July 21, 1932, the government first submitted an application for an injunction and a constitutional complaint to the State Court of the Reichsgericht . She was represented by Ministerial Director Arnold Brecht . The application for an interim injunction was denied on July 25, 1932 because the court did not want to anticipate the final decision.

Goebbels noted in his diary on July 21: “The Reds missed their big hour. She'll never come back. "

Decision of the State Court of 25 October 1932

In its judgment in the "Prussia contra Reich" case of October 25, the State Court of Justice named the measures taken by Reich Commissioner Papen (who was legally represented by Carl Schmitt , Erwin Jacobi and Carl Bilfinger ) to maintain order and security because of the state of emergency - however, the Braun government retained its constitutional position vis-à-vis the Landtag, Reichstag, Reichsrat and Reichsregierung. Her removal was not considered justified.

In the meantime, Papen's provisional government had already replaced the heads of the administrative apparatus and the police.

After the decision of the Imperial Court of Justice, the Braun government, which had now been rehabilitated under constitutional law but deprived of its real power, reassembled as the so-called "sovereign government" for its weekly cabinet meetings. However, the actual power lay with the representatives of the " Reichsexekution ", the "Commissioner's Government" under Franz Bracht . The provisions of the ruling of the Reichsgericht were not observed by the Reich government. The temporary work of the temporary administration was never ended.

The public attacked the topic with sarcastic puns like “Brecht has the right, but Bracht has the power” and “Bracht breaks Brecht”.

Karl Dietrich Bracher assessed the compromise judgment as one of “grotesque ambiguity”, since its legal part speaks for the Prussian point of view, “while his basic political tenor, with the recognition of what happened once, is based on the coup d'état-shaped will of one only on the authority of the Reich President and the means of power of the Government supported by the Reichswehr “.

Historical evaluation of the events

In 2007, party researcher Franz Walter came to the conclusion that a few reactionary barons had only needed half a day to smash the prestigious political work of the Social Democrats, namely Republican Prussia, without the SPD even beginning to take seriously this hustle and bustle. “It was the same as always: Martial speeches were made at party rallies, indignant protests were made, and sharply worded resolutions were passed. That was it already". In the summer of 1932, the minority of Republicans in Germany had clearly lost their belief in themselves, which made it easy for Hitler to come to power .

swell

  • Prussia versus Reich before the State Court. Shorthand of the negotiations before the State Court in Leipzig from October 10th to 14th and 17th, 1932. JHW Dietz, Berlin 1933.
  • Central State Archives (Prussian Secret State Archives Merseburg, Rep. 90a, Dept. B, Tit. III, 2 b., No. 6, Vol. 181 and Vol. 182, 1 to 20) (today these documents are in the Secret State Archives Prussian Cultural property in Berlin-Dahlem).

literature

  • Jürgen Bay: The Prussian Conflict 1932/33. A chapter from the constitutional history of the Weimar Republic. Erlangen 1965 (also dissertation, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 1965).
  • Ludwig Biewer : The Prussian strike of July 20, 1932, causes, events, consequences and evaluation. In: sheets for German national history. Vol. 119, 1983, ISSN  0006-4408 , pp. 159-172, online .
  • Heribert Blaschke: The end of the Prussian state. A constitutional investigation. Waindinger, Ensdorf / Saar 1960 (also dissertation, Saarland University, 1960).
  • Karl Dietrich Bracher : The dissolution of the Weimar Republic. A study on the problem of the decline in power in a democracy. Unchanged 2nd reprint of the 5th edition 1971 with an introduction to the paperback edition and a supplement to the bibliography. Droste, Düsseldorf 1984, ISBN 3-7700-0908-8 .
  • Arnold Brecht : The dissolution of the Weimar Republic and political science. In: Journal of Politics . NF Volume 2, Issue 4, December 1955, pp. 291-308.
  • Henning Grund: “Preußenschlag” and the State Court of Justice in 1932 (= studies and materials on constitutional jurisdiction. Vol. 5). Nomos, Baden-Baden 1976, ISBN 3-7890-0209-7 (also dissertation, University of Göttingen, 1976).

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ The Weimar Republic. Volume 3. Chapter 5. (No longer available online.) In: www.blz.bayern.de. Archived from the original on March 17, 2016 ; accessed on March 25, 2016 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.blz.bayern.de
  2. ↑ cit. after Franz Albrecht Medicus: Reich reform and country conference, Berlin 1930, p. 5 f. quoted to
  3. ↑ The Weimar Republic. Volume 3. Chapter 5. (No longer available online.) In: www.blz.bayern.de. Archived from the original on March 17, 2016 ; accessed on March 25, 2016 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.blz.bayern.de
  4. ↑ The Weimar Republic. Volume 3. Chapter 5. (No longer available online.) In: www.blz.bayern.de. Archived from the original on March 17, 2016 ; accessed on March 25, 2016 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.blz.bayern.de
  5. ^ Arnold Brecht: Föderalismus, Regionalismus und die Teilung Preußens, Bonn 1949, p. 135 f., Given according to BLZ, s. Document 3.
  6. ^ Karl-Ulrich Gelberg: Bund zur Renewerung des Reiches (Luther Bund), 1928–1933 / 34. In: Historical Lexicon of Bavaria . Retrieved March 24, 2016.
  7. ↑ The Weimar Republic. Volume 3. Chapter 5. (No longer available online.) Blz.bayern.de, archived from the original on March 17, 2016 ; accessed on March 25, 2016 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.blz.bayern.de
  8. ↑ Stefan Scholl: Limited Dependency. Campus, Frankfurt am Main / New York 2015, ISBN 978-3-593-50289-2 , p. 178 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  9. ↑ See Constitution of the Free State of Prussia of November 30, 1920 .
  10. ↑ See: 1918–1933. The “German October” , brief overview, German Historical Museum , Berlin.
  11. ^ For details on this, see Wolfram Pyta : Hindenburg. Rule between Hohenzollern and Hitler. Siedler, Munich 2007, ISBN 978-3-88680-865-6 , p. 712 f.
  12. ^ Astrid von Pufendorf: Otto Klepper (1888–1957) - German patriot and cosmopolitan (= studies of contemporary history. Volume 54). Oldenbourg, Munich 1997, p. 134 f.
  13. ↑ Exile magazine Das Neue Tagebuch ed. by Leopold Schwarzschild Paris - Amsterdam, No. 4, July 22, 1933, article by Otto Klepper, Remembrance of July 20, 1932 , pp. 90 ff.
  14. ↑ After the Prussian strike, Schmitt confirmed the legality of the putsch in an expert report. WDR critical diary , publ. August 2003, available in the online Plettenberg Lexicon at http://www.plettenberg-lexikon.de/haben/schmitt.htm - accessed on February 16, 2019.
  15. ^ Ludwig Biewer : Der Preußenschlag 1932. Causes, events, consequences and evaluation. In: sheets for German national history . Vol. 119, 1983, pp. 159-172, here p. 169.
  16. ^ Stefan Oeter: Integration and Subsidiarity in German Federal State Law: Investigations into Federal State Theory under the Basic Law . Mohr Siebeck, 1998, ISBN 978-3-16-146885-8 ( books.google.com [accessed March 25, 2016]).
  17. ^ Karl Dietrich Bracher: Writings of the Institute for Political Science . Duncker & Humblot, 1955 ( books.google.com [accessed March 25, 2016]).
  18. ^ Franz Walter: Putsch on July 20, 1932: How the myth of Prussia was smashed , Der Spiegel, July 19, 2007 (accessed October 3, 2019).