German Revolution (1918) - A Bourgeois Revolution?

[BITW434]

Okay quick question here

I know that the growth of capitalism in Germany had commenced much earlier than the turn of the 20th century, but would it be somewhat acceptable to argue in my History coursework that the events that transpired in Germany in 1918 signified the completion of the process of bourgeois revolution?
Would I be right to argue that there was a clash of interests between the autocratic rule of the nobility (I read somewhere that the Junkers still held a reasonable amount of power even in the 1900s) and the insurgent bourgeoisie, which culminated in the German Revolution of 1918 and the abolition of the monarchy and nobility?

While I'm not completely ignorant on the subject, my knowledge of German history before 1933 isn't ridiculously great so if any of you could offer some assistance it would be much appreciated! :thumbup1:

[Os Cangaceiros]

The German Revolution of 1918 was one of the three "classical proletarian revolutions" IMO (the others being Russia Revolution of 1917 and the Spanish Revolution of 1936). It was violently suppressed, though. In any case, the bourgeoisie had emerged victorious in Germany long before 1918 so they had no need to cement their rule (except to suppress insurgent workers)

[1xAntifa]

My take on this is that Bismark solidified the bourgeois in Germany with his combination of social welfare legislation [Germany was a pioneer in this regard] with anti-socialist legislation to prevent workers organising. The aristocratic order collapsed in 1918 sparking spontaneous uprisings across Germany that were suppressed by the devils pact between the Social Democratic Party [nominally Marxist] and militaristic elements of the defeated old order. Spartacists [revolutionary marxists] Karl Leibnecht and Rosa Luxembourg were murdered by the white reactionaries who spread white terror over Germany culminating in the supression of the newly declared soviet in Barvaria. A certain corporal was involved as an informer for the military against red worker's which is how he got his political beginnings. Subsequently Weimar Republic was a matter of in-difference to large numbers of Germans opening the way to power for the said corporal and his minions.

That's the gist and I'm sure the more knowlegeable will correct it if its wrong. Its a fascinating period of history.

[ñángara]

I wonder what would had happened if Trotsky and not Karl Radek would has been sent to the founding conference of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in 1918-1919.

[1xAntifa]

Given Trotsky's track record of oratory and organisation who can tell? Maybe he could have pulled those chestnuts out of the fire. I doubt it as the bottom line as I see it was that the SPD veered towards reaction out of fear of Bolshevism. So the Trotsky card may well have accelerated the white reaction towards all out authoritarianism based on overt military rule, which may in turn have been a prophylactic to [s]hitler and his cronies. Counter-factuals are risky business.:laugh: