And the fascist Freikorps units were also doing an armed rebellion.
I don’t think you understand the post-WW1 Freikorps if you think that they were ideologically fascist or rebelling as a whole. The Freikorps were a vast and varied collection of unofficial paramilitaries that weren’t even associated with one another. While generally nationalist, they ranged ideologically from conservative monarchists to staunch SPD supporters. Most Freikorps units didn’t even persist past the chaos of 1919, for fuck’s sake.
The SPD rolled over for them then set them with military support against the KPD.
The idea that the SPD ‘rolled over’ for the Freikorps (which the SPD-controlled government was instrumental in disbanding after the establishment of the Reichswehr) is… just not backed up by evidence. Have you forgotten that a core reason for the Kapp Putsch was that the Weimar government was disbanding various Freikorps units?
Keep changing what you’re arguing, and maybe you’ll come across a goalpost you like. Like claiming that Freikorps that were SPD partisans were actually fascists, because we all know that’s the ‘social fascist’ bullshit you’re pushing here. “B-both sides!”
The Freikorps were what? Largely nationalists who were SPD supporters or conservative monarchists?
Why yes. That’s kind of conveniently accurate here. Thanks for noting that prominently.
The Kapp Putsch directly led to the ruhr uprising, at which point the Freikorps were absolutely used with the Reichswehr against the communists. So the causes of the Kapp Putsch are rather overshadowed by the results and aftermath.
After 1919 the Freikorps were largely dissolved, but more importantly the ones that remained rebranded into organizations like the S.A. The architects of the Holocaust were this kind of Freikorps: like Himmler, Bormann, and Heydrich.
So really: Is it really offensive to note that empowering fascism for whatever reason is a bad idea that just empowers fascism?
I don’t think you understand the post-WW1 Freikorps if you think that they were ideologically fascist or rebelling as a whole. The Freikorps were a vast and varied collection of unofficial paramilitaries that weren’t even associated with one another. While generally nationalist, they ranged ideologically from conservative monarchists to staunch SPD supporters. Most Freikorps units didn’t even persist past the chaos of 1919, for fuck’s sake.
The idea that the SPD ‘rolled over’ for the Freikorps (which the SPD-controlled government was instrumental in disbanding after the establishment of the Reichswehr) is… just not backed up by evidence. Have you forgotten that a core reason for the Kapp Putsch was that the Weimar government was disbanding various Freikorps units?
Keep changing what you’re arguing, and maybe you’ll come across a goalpost you like. Like claiming that Freikorps that were SPD partisans were actually fascists, because we all know that’s the ‘social fascist’ bullshit you’re pushing here. “B-both sides!”
The Freikorps were what? Largely nationalists who were SPD supporters or conservative monarchists?
Why yes. That’s kind of conveniently accurate here. Thanks for noting that prominently.
The Kapp Putsch directly led to the ruhr uprising, at which point the Freikorps were absolutely used with the Reichswehr against the communists. So the causes of the Kapp Putsch are rather overshadowed by the results and aftermath.
After 1919 the Freikorps were largely dissolved, but more importantly the ones that remained rebranded into organizations like the S.A. The architects of the Holocaust were this kind of Freikorps: like Himmler, Bormann, and Heydrich.
So really: Is it really offensive to note that empowering fascism for whatever reason is a bad idea that just empowers fascism?