Bavarian Soviet Repubic

[B0LSHEVIK]

Bayerische Räterepublik

The short lived German revolution of 1918-19. I honestly dont know too much about it. Mainly because during this same period, interesting things were unfolding in Russia. But anyways, I find this period counfusing, but yet so interesting. I do intend to read up on it, but currently by book queue is backed up a bit. I have many questions. Too many probably to answer on this thread, and more will come, surely. But, why Munich? Why not Berlin? Also, was the Soviet government in Munich Moscow alligned? Was it trying to get Russian aid? Was it on a independent track? And the Freikorps. WTF? Where do they come from? All accounts Ive read just mention how they just happened to march on Munich, along with some army groups. Who were they, how did they form, and more? Ive always known about the German rev, how Trotsky felt and how it encouraged his early permanent revolution theory. But I have just never gone about fully researching it. Sadly.

Anyone help?

[ComradeOm]

AJ Ryder's The German Revolution is probably the best introduction to this period in Germany but, if you have the time and the patience, Broue's The German Revolution (imaginative, no?) is well worth the read for an in-depth account written from the perspective of the socialist parties


But, why Munich? Why not Berlin?One of the features of the German Revolution, a product of the country's rather fragmented history and structure, was the decentralised nature of events. It wasn't so much a 'German Revolution' as a 'revolution across the German states'. There were indeed risings in most major German cities, including Berlin, but most were put down sooner or later, including Munich. Care has to be taken not to overstress the accomplishments of the new Bavarian state - it was in existence for only a few months and did little of note

Partly this is because the revolution in Bavaria came as a complete surprise to pretty much everybody, including Eisner who led it. I say "led" but a few sailors simply handed him a banner at socialist rally on 7 Nov 1918 and called for the crowd to unite behind him. The garrison joined in and the dynasty was toppled, creating a Bavarian Republic. Which was surprising in conservative Bavaria but par for the course elsewhere in Germany

There was nothing particularly revolutionary about Eisner's government, at least compared to what was going on in Russia, and the socialists lost the Bavarian parliamentary elections in February 1919. That would have been that except that Eisner was assassinated on his way to announce his resignation and this sparked off a period of chaos. A Soviet Republic was declared on 6 April, which was opposed by the Communists, but fell when the Munich garrison revolted on 13 April. About the sum of its accomplishments was declaring war on Switzerland. The new government was led by a group of Russian-Jewish Communists, headed by Eugen Leviné, and they took the opportunity to declare a second, and much more radical, Soviet Republic. This lasted until 1 May until the Reichswehr, under the socialist Noske, conquered the city in the name of the Berlin SPD government. White terror ensued

And that was the Bavarian Soviet Republic


Also, was the Soviet government in Munich Moscow alligned? Was it trying to get Russian aid?More or less. Leviné's Republic was recognisably Communist but there was nowhere near enough time to align with or procure aid from Moscow. Bela Kun's Hungarian Soviet Republic was much more influential, if only due to proximity, during the early months of 1919 but even this was fairly indirect


And the Freikorps. WTF? Where do they come from? All accounts Ive read just mention how they just happened to march on Munich, along with some army groups. Who were they, how did they form, and more?Basically the Freikorps were paramilitary units formed around anti-Communist officers from the old Imperial Army. They were counter-revolutionary formations maintained by the old General Staff and used by the new Weimar government, headed by SPD 'socialists', to crush the Revolution. They marched not just to Munich but to Berlin, Dortmund, the Ruhr, Saxony, everywhere that revolutionary bodies took charge. Because the German Revolution was so uncoordinated the reactionaries were able to put down a rising in one town and then move off to suppress another rising that had only just begun elsewhere in the country

[Rjevan]

Nice, interesting topic. ;)
Not much to add, just a little on the Freikorps: from the very beginning the (M)SPD under Friedrich Ebert did its utmost to ensure that the revolting soldiers and people are kept under controll and that revolution stays contained. Ebert was appointed new Reichskanzler to prevent the worst and acted accordingly: "If the Kaiser does not abdicate, the social revolution is inevitable. But I do not want it, I even hate it like sin". The Kaiser "was abdicated" but the real rulers, the OHL (Supreme Army Command) stayed in power and Ebert gladly allied himself with them (Ebert-Groener Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebert%E2%80%93Groener_pact)). The result was that the most reactionary troops (hardcore nationalists and anti-communists, many of whom had already fought the Red Army in the eastern front) were put under the controll of SPD's Gustav Noske ("All right, someone has to be the bloodhound.") who, thanks to the 500 million Mark provided by the German capitalists like Stinnes and their Anti-Bolshevik League, had them armed and recruited since December.

They had their debut during the Spartacist January Uprising and were responsible for the murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. Thus they proved to be effective and were used against all "red uprisings" which were to come, ignoring that they hated the Weimar government as much as the "Reds", which became obvious for even the blindest fool when they marched through Berlin during the Kapp Putsch, swastikas on their helmets.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Ok thanks for the responses, but like had said previously, only more questions!

Like, first of all, so that we can get the BSR in context, why did Germany surrender in WW1? I ask because this led to the abdication of the monarchy, which in turn led to Weimar. But too be honest, the reasons Ive hear for surrender are odd. German troops after all had just been freed from the Eastern Front (after embarrassing the Bolsheviks with a humiliating treaty). And, the western front still ran through France and the lower countries. So why did Germany surrender? I think this important to get down, because it sets up the next decade.

And, coincidentally, BSR and the Paris Commune have more or less the same birthday. April-May. Which could we say had a bigger role? Which is more significant? And from what I gather, unlike the Commune which had a tinge of anarchism, the BSR were mostly council communists, right?

And back to the Friekorps, were they the base for the Brown Shirts? Did the national socialists use or absorb them? And, from reading Mein Kampf, Hitler had a strong 'proletarian' message, more so than Mussolini. Was this to attract 'confused' socialists?

[ComradeOm]

Like, first of all, so that we can get the BSR in context, why did Germany surrender in WW1?Because the home front was collapsing. Four years of war, including a crippling Allied blockade, had brought the German economy to breaking point. With the armies in the West in retreat, and millions of men still tied down securing the Eastern gains, the German war machine was simply at the point of collapse and could no longer go on fighting. Unable to keep fighting the German High Command (particularly Ludendorff) convinced the civilian authorities to assume power, with the ulterior motive of keeping the Imperial Army intact in order to combat any revolution at home. By November 1918 Germany was already erupting into revolution


And, coincidentally, BSR and the Paris Commune have more or less the same birthday. April-May. Which could we say had a bigger role? Which is more significant? Without question the Commune. The German Revolution itself is of immense importance (if largely for what it didn't achieve as much as what it did) but the BSR was just one minor element of this affair


the BSR were mostly council communists, right?No. Worker councils (essentially soviets) were prominent in the BSR but all the major actors were socialists from either the SPD or USPD, or Communists


And back to the Friekorps, were they the base for the Brown Shirts? Did the national socialists use or absorb them? Many later Nazis served in the Freikorps but there was, AFAIK, no official link between the two. The Freikorps, which were always far more akin to real combat units than the Nazi thugs, were gradually abolished after 1920 when they came to be seen as a threat to the Berlin government


And, from reading Mein Kampf, Hitler had a strong 'proletarian' message, more so than Mussolini. Was this to attract 'confused' socialists?No. While one or two crackpots may have been attracted to National Socialism, the party itself was never a major draw for either socialist politicians or the working class

[zimmerwald1915]

And from what I gather, unlike the Commune which had a tinge of anarchism, the BSR were mostly council communists, right?
Council communism, as such, didn't really have any orgainzational or theoretical force at the time. And the Bavarian Communists were not a significant part of later council communism. In Germany, council communism derives from a split out of the KAPD, which was strongest in Essen, Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen, and Halle.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

from reading Mein Kampf, Hitler had a strong 'proletarian' message, more so than Mussolini. Was this to attract 'confused' socialists?
The Nazi's started off and generally had a strong middle-class base. A lot of their support came from the middle-class, and those seeking to restore the economy and fight off the radical left, the unions, and the social democrats. The anti-Jewish ideology was an important factor as well, however...
I think an important factor that historians and documentaries forget to add is that at times the early years and the building of the Nazi's, they often had to "tone down" their anti-Jewish sentiment and other extremest ideas. I am unaware (or simply forgot) as to how many times or what certain areas they had to do this to guarantee votes. I think Chris Harman's "The Lost Revolution" briefly touched this subject.
However, once they had the power, they had no reason to tone it down to certain towns and audiences.

[B0LSHEVIK]

The Nazi's started off and generally had a strong middle-class base. A lot of their support came from the middle-class, and those seeking to restore the economy and fight off the radical left, the unions, and the social democrats. The anti-Jewish ideology was an important factor as well, however...
I think an important factor that historians and documentaries forget to add is that at times the early years and the building of the Nazi's, they often had to "tone down" their anti-Jewish sentiment and other extremest ideas. I am unaware (or simply forgot) as to how many times or what certain areas they had to do this to guarantee votes. I think Chris Harman's "The Lost Revolution" briefly touched this subject.
However, once they had the power, they had no reason to tone it down to certain towns and audiences.

Agreed.

But in Mein Kampf, and other sources as well, fascists did try to appeal to the proletariat. Think about it, National Socialism. Another way of calling it was non-marxist socialism. Many fascists tried to to this. Franco himself said that half of the Falange were 'rojos.' Hitler spoke of the 'moral bankruptcy of capitalism.' Yet, advocated against the class struggle claiming it only divides and destroys a nation. Im not saying Hiter was for the proletariat, but he and other fascists did try to appeal to the working class. And I think Mussolini did a better job at that than Hitler.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Not to forget that Hitler picked up a good deal of his strategy from Karl Lueger, the hugely popular, genuinely populist, and genuinely antisemitic mayor of Vienna at the turn of the century. Nor, that Vienna did have a successful "red" revolution from 1919 to 1934. Of course one can argue how "red" it was, since the conscious decision of the Austro-Marxists was to avoid the disasters that hit the Bavarian and Hungarian Republics.

[Rjevan]

Like, first of all, so that we can get the BSR in context, why did Germany surrender in WW1? I ask because this led to the abdication of the monarchy, which in turn led to Weimar.
Not only was the home front collapsing but they army was finished, too (see Kaiserschlacht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Offensive) and the following Hundred Days Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive)). The bourgeoisie was afraid of the Bolshevik influence and the OHL realised that the war can't be won anymore but that the troops are needed at home. As ComradeOm said, the OHL (led by Ludendorff and Hindenburg, both later involved in Hitler's rise), which was the true Kaiser of Germany during the war, urged for democratisation and parliamentarisation simply because that would blame "the democrats" for surrendering and all the trouble which was bound to come. True, the monarchy collapsed and the Kaiser was gone but the people behind the system were still in their positions of power and ensured that loyal friends and allies like Ebert won't touch them. Weimar was a necessary evil in their eyes to prevent Soviet Germany but they never hid the fact that they work and wish for a return of monarchy or at least a military dictatorship.


And, coincidentally, BSR and the Paris Commune have more or less the same birthday. April-May. Which could we say had a bigger role?
Definitely the Commune. The BSR is interesting but didn't get to do much and overall can't be compared with the Commune.


the BSR were mostly council communists, right?
Leviné looked to the Bolsheviks as a model and actually contacted Lenin for advice and support.


And back to the Friekorps, were they the base for the Brown Shirts? Did the national socialists use or absorb them?
Both. The Freikorps were officially dissolved in 1923, some members joined the Reichswehr, others joined Stahlhelm (who proudly refered to themselves as "the German fascists"), terrorist group Organisation Consul (responsible for several assassinations) or the newly founded SA. They can be (and are by many historians) seen as base for German fascism and later famous Nazis like Ernst Röhm, Rudolf Heß and Heinrich Himmler were members and leaders of the Freikorps.


And, from reading Mein Kampf, Hitler had a strong 'proletarian' message, more so than Mussolini. Was this to attract 'confused' socialists?
To some degree the Nazis indeed tried to attract confused socialists and some backward strata of the working class but always pointed out that Marxism and "Jewish-Bolshevism" must be considered as enemy and be exterminated at all costs. There was also a "left wing" of the Nazi Party, focusing around the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser (today there are still "Strasserists"), initially Goebbels before he turned to Hitler and later Ernst Röhm and parts of the SA.