What did the council of the people deputy immediately change when they got in power
Executive summary
The Council of the People’s Deputies — the provisional government formed in Germany on 10 November 1918 — immediately moved to consolidate state authority while promising revolutionary organs a role: it set up a provisional executive, scheduled elections to a constituent national assembly, and negotiated continuity with the military and civil administration rather than purging them at once [1] [2] [3]. Those early acts reveal a pragmatic leadership intent on stabilising Germany after the Kaiser’s abdication even as socialist factions pressed for deeper, faster transformations [4] [1].
1. Proclaiming a provisional government and joint chairmanship
The Council’s first concrete change was to establish itself publicly as the provisional government of the revolution: the body known as the Council of the People’s Deputies was formed on 10 November 1918 and presented as the governing authority until a constituent assembly could be convened [1] [4]. The council’s composition — equal representation from the Majority Social Democrats (MSPD) and the Independent Social Democrats (USPD) with a dual chairmanship — made the Council both a revolutionary product and a compromise instrument intended to hold the state together while political decisions about Germany’s future were deferred [4] [2].
2. Scheduling elections to a national constituent assembly
One of the Council’s earliest policy decisions was to schedule elections for a national constituent assembly (the Weimar National Assembly) for January 1919, effectively transferring the task of constitutional legitimacy to a democratically elected body rather than consolidating permanent power in the Council itself [1] [2]. That decision was a deliberate signal that the Council saw its role as provisional and that it sought a democratic legitimisation of government through elections, even while the parties inside the Council disagreed about how revolutionary change should be institutionalised [1].
3. Recognising workers’ and soldiers’ councils but limiting their formal powers
From the outset the Council accepted the existence and political role of workers’ and soldiers’ councils, agreeing they should meet “as soon as possible,” yet it resisted the more revolutionary demand that those councils receive explicit executive, legislative and judicial power [1] [2]. This was a clear, immediate restraint on radical decentralisation: the MSPD relented to acknowledge the councils politically but avoided wording that would transfer sovereign state powers to them, reflecting a tactical compromise meant to prevent fragmentation of authority [1].
4. Preserving the civil service, judiciary and military command
Rather than purging the existing administration, the Council kept many right-wing, anti-republican elements in administrative, judicial and military posts, and sought bargains with the military high command to secure order — notably arrangements that left senior commanders like Hindenburg in place and signalled cooperation with the officer corps [1] [3]. This immediate decision to prioritise stability over revolutionary replacement of personnel revealed a hidden agenda of the MSPD leadership: to stabilize the state and prevent a Bolshevik-style rupture even at the cost of accommodating conservative institutions [3] [2].
5. Exercising dominant party leadership while limiting broader council power
Though the Council was nominally balanced, in practice it asserted dominance over the network of workers’ and soldiers’ councils by controlling the Greater Berlin Executive Council and leveraging the authority of established party leaders; effective power flowed through those leaders rather than through a plenary council democracy [1] [2]. That immediate centralisation of practical authority under the Council’s leadership curtailed the more democratic or soviet-style ambitions of the USPD and spartacist elements, setting the stage for later conflicts over the direction and pace of change [1].
Conclusion: immediate changes were stabilising, not revolutionary transfers of power
In sum, the Council’s first acts were to declare a provisional government, set a timetable for constituent elections, recognise but limit the power of revolutionary councils, and secure continuity within the civil and military apparatus rather than dismantle it — choices that privileged order and legal legitimacy over radical institutional overhaul [1] [2] [3]. Sources document these steps but do not provide exhaustive detail on internal debates or all local variations in implementation; where reporting is silent, further archival or scholarly research would be required [4].