|WikiProject Germany||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on March 13, 2013.|
Stuttgart or Dresden?
I thought the Gov't moved to Dresden during the Kapp Putsch! Please check this source for me
- I learnt they moved to Dresden (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/kapp_putsch.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- The government moved to Dresden, where they hoped to get support from Generalmajor Maercker. When they realized that Maercker did not want to take a clear stance they moved further to Stuttgart. See e.g. Wolfram Wette: Gustav Noske, Droste 1987, pages 642-645 --Kuhl-k (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
What Does "Reactionary" Mean?
I question whether this term adds anything other than left-wing rhetoric to the discussion. The leaders of the putsch may, indeed, have been supporters of monarchy, and saying that is legitimate; but calling them "reactionary" is imposing a political value judgment and conclusion of a peculiar historical school, which constitutes not fact but opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the references to "reactionary" are derived from the Encyclopedia Britannica article of 1922- a well-known repository of "left-wing rhetoric". Ning-ning (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Meanings and uses do change over time...and I would propose that the meaning of "reactionary" is indeed now much more negative (and POV) than in 1922. Moreover, given the distance in time to 1920, it is better to enumerate what these forces wanted to go back to (monarchy, strong military, etc.). It was probably obvious at the time, but is not necessarily so to today's WP users. Drow69 (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Quite right. Better to say perhaps a reaction to the Revolution of 1918 since the stated aim of the putsch was to turn the clock back. Also, the troop reductions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles was the immediate cause of the putsch, but this page overstates that. Lüttwitz was an enemy of democracy of long-standing, and that was the real cause of the putsch. The precise terms of the Treaty of Versilles are meaningless in this context; even if the Versailles treaty had mandated no troop reductions at all, people like Lüttwitz would had still been out to destroy the Weimar republic. The page makes it sound like that Lüttwitz, Ludendorff, and company were all OK with the November Revolution, and it was only the Treaty of Versailles that tipped them over the edge. But that is a common misconception on Wikipedia. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Could someone pls verify the troop numbers given in the Background section? Does this really refer to "early 1919"? If so, it it not really relevant to the situation in early 1920 as the "old" army of WWI was still being demobilised in early 1919. Moreover, it was not the Reichswehr yet. Technically, the regular troops were still part of the old army until the National Assembly passed a law on Feb. 6 establishing the "Transitionary Reichswehr" (which included the Navy). This was superseded in Oct. 1919 when the name changed to "Übergangsheer". The actual "Reichswehr" was only established on Jan. 1, 1921.
The introduction uses the terms legitimate or illegitimate three times. I am not sure it should be used at all. The de facto government was itself illegitimate, having been created in a revolution less than 2 years earlier.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there was a revolution which implies constitutional and legal discontinuity. However, there were democratic elections in January 1919 establishing a constitutional convention that passed a new constitution in the summer of 1919. The government was based on parties that had a majority of delegates in that convention and was legally appointed by the president. That is legitimate by most standards. Note that this does not necessarily imply a moral judgment - the government was legitimate in the sense that it came into office in accordance with the legal and constitutional framework operational at the time...which the guys around Kapp clearly did not do. Moreover, this is also the language used today by historians, so it should be ok for wikipedia.Drow69 (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)