As a citizen of the American Republic in good standing, I absolutely insist on civilian supremacy over the military. But that does nobody any good if it is taken to the point where the military is being ordered around at a level where it cannot exercise its own professional judgment and is merely a toy of the civilian leadership trying to do something outside its own core competence. Hitler and Stalin are both examples of civilian supremacy over the military a la outrance that should give us pause.
Whether or not Seekt's support of the Weimar Republic was merely tactical is immaterial. He did support it. He wasn't in love with it. Sadly, neither were most other Germans. This may have ultimately doomed the venture, she had no defenders when the crunch came (on either the left or right, note. The communists did as much to sink it as the nazis, where indeed positively thrilled at the chance to strike against the "social fascists" as they termed the SDs.) The present Federal Republic is enormously more respected by Germans, curiously enough, and is far more stable as a result. Somewhere along the line, they decided to give democracy a fair chance.
I asked the question because you appear to equate corruption of the German army with allowing civilian meddling in its professional business. Your answer, which makes sense providing you acquiesce to the military/political status quo, omits mention of corruption. I would agree that professionals need to be allowed to do their job for a civilian government, but this corruption business troubles me a little.
I have to disagree with your pragmatic approach to Seeckt's politics. As history unfolded, his tactical support for Weimar turned into agitation and voting for Hitler's dictatorial powers. Seeckt didn't change, but the situation did, and his support for Hitler in the '30s was contained in his attitude towards the putschists in the '20s.
Stalin's ultra left 'social fascist' policy and infamous 'red referendum' are among his cruellest crimes and remain text book examples of how to divide a social force in the face of the enemy. The subsequent 'popular front' policy achieved the same results by way of subordinating the working class to the very currents, and worse, that had previously been determined 'social fascist.' That said, neither the SPD or KPD voted to enable Hitler as a dictator. They accepted the vote, failed to mobilise the working class, there and then, to topple the new dictator, and that was the greatest crime of all. The unions, of course, approached Hitler, to see how they could work together. Didn't save them from 're-education' in the camps.
“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson