How are Freikorps veiwed in a world where Germany never went Nazi?

I'm currently reading Nigel Jones book Hitlers Haralds on the Freikorps in Germany. As the title suggests Freikorps are veiwed as part of the road that led to the road to Nazism and some took part in the Beer Hall Putsch and eventually morphed into SA/SS type groups. Thinking of this I wondered how they would be viewed in a world where Nazis never came to power in Germany? Lets say the Freikorps defeat communist movements as IOTL and fade into the background in the later 20s. From then on a stronger Weimer Republic or German economy keeps Germany largely democratic.
 

The Vulture

Banned
Damn good question, friend. My best guess is that they're seen as zealots who did some good (putting down Communist uprisings), but ultimately were unsuited for the new postwar Germany. Perhaps they would be viewed with regret or embarrassment, like some of the political movements from our time (like the KKK or the People's Temple, to use two widely separate United States causes), seeing as the Freikorps killed people.
 
I'm currently reading Nigel Jones book Hitlers Haralds on the Freikorps in Germany. As the title suggests Freikorps are veiwed as part of the road that led to the road to Nazism and some took part in the Beer Hall Putsch and eventually morphed into SA/SS type groups. Thinking of this I wondered how they would be viewed in a world where Nazis never came to power in Germany? Lets say the Freikorps defeat communist movements as IOTL and fade into the background in the later 20s. From then on a stronger Weimer Republic or German economy keeps Germany largely democratic.

I think the problem with that is the majority of the freikorps were run by either political radicals or WW1 era officers and conservatives, so the majority of them had major problems with the Weimer government. If a coalition of the freikorps decisively crush the communist movement in Germany, then you have the problem of large numbers of well-armed paramilitaries carrying around more prestige then the government, this rarely ends well, seeing how the military was not particularly supportive of the government either.

all this is IIRC, as I don't have any sources for inter-war german istory on hand at the moment.
 
Probably a matter of historic dispute between parties. Hard nationalists: German heroes, proof that we never really lost the war, etcetera. Conservative and right-liberal types: defending the Fatherland in time of strife is everybody's duty and very admirable. The political activities of certain misguided units were perhaps less so. Left-liberals and socialists: hey, we're all for defending the Fatherland in time of strife, but the Freikorps were for the most part a pack of thugs and no better than the Communist thugs they fought. Communists: capitalist running-dog murderers.

I think the problem with that is the majority of the freikorps were run by either political radicals or WW1 era officers and conservatives, so the majority of them had major problems with the Weimer government. If a coalition of the freikorps decisively crush the communist movement in Germany, then you have the problem of large numbers of well-armed paramilitaries carrying around more prestige then the government, this rarely ends well, seeing how the military was not particularly supportive of the government either.

This is precisely what happened after the end of far-left agitation. The Freikorps had the physical power to unseat the government and did so in the Kapp Putsch, but the people of Germany rejected there regime and the country griound to a halt, so they gave in.
 
I agree with I Blame Communism, thought the SDP did use the freikorps to crush the reds in saxony, the reinhland, berling and Bavaria.

They also fought in Silisia. The assasinaton of G. Noske and the Kapch Putch would still coulder parts of the movmente badly.
 
I blame Communism got there first, the political right would probably gloss over the Kapp Putsch and other nasty bits and emphasis the suppression of the Communist uprisings, the hard left would loathe them and the SPD would try to forget the entie period as it was the SDP who let them loose in the first place.
 
Maybe the way the more radical parts of the Irgun militia are viewed in the modern Israel? As people who may have ultimately fought for the right cause but with the wrong means?
 

Susano

Banned
Well, there were Freikorps who fought Germanys external enemies, in the Upper Silesian conflict, or trying to sabotage the French occupation of the Ruhr Area. But most were used as political militias, internally, against other Germans.

So I think it will be similar as in Spain after Franco or Chile after Pinochet - a substantial minority of rightwing idiots (in continuing Weiamr germany not only DNVP, but probably at least the right Zentrum wing as well) will view them positive, but the majority wont but will have to take care not to offend the rightwingers sensibilities.

and the SPD would try to forget the entie period as it was the SDP who let them loose in the first place.
Well, the SPD government only used them against spartacists and other militant groups, who themselves were hardly innocent, either. And loathsome as the Freikorps were, it was a good thing that the Spartacists were crushed.
 

Susano

Banned
Maybe the way the more radical parts of the Irgun militia are viewed in the modern Israel? As people who may have ultimately fought for the right cause but with the wrong means?

But the Freikorps did NOT fight for the right cause. They were useful at some times maybe, as dangerous tools, but they definitly did not fight for the right cause!
 
Since a no Nazis in power probably butterflys away WWII as we know it might the violence of Sparticist Week, the Munich Soviet and the other events of the immediate postwar period be seen as a full fleghed civil war?If thats the case the violence would be more excepted. I was thinking they might be viewed like the IRA of the same period- violent militants who fought a civil war that ultimately created a nation.
 
The Freikorps inside the Reich were government troops who fought for the government and its goals - until they (well, some of them) turned against it in the Kapp Putsch. - The Putsch, however, occurred because the government was in the process of abolishing these FKs.
So, the FK might be seen as an useful instrument, which to some extend revolted against being instrumentalised, but otherwise had had a positive influence on events.
(The same FKs, which had revolted, were - days later - employed to crush the Red Ruhr Army - and afterwards were disbanded without further strife.)

The FK outside the Reich were employed because the Entente wanted it. They most probably would have been seen as victims of Entente machinations.
 
But the Freikorps did NOT fight for the right cause. They were useful at some times maybe, as dangerous tools, but they definitly did not fight for the right cause!
Well plenty of people would say that Irgun didnt fight for the right cause so the example still stands.
 

Susano

Banned
The Freikorps inside the Reich were government troops who fought for the government and its goals - until they (well, some of them) turned against it in the Kapp Putsch. - The Putsch, however, occurred because the government was in the process of abolishing these FKs.
Thats simply not true. The government had no authority over them, and the Freikorps certainly had a mind of their own. Its vastly more correct to say that Freikorps and governments were allied at times, but of course the government, as is its duty, wanted to restore the Gewaltmonopol. (Since that term, if in translation or not, doesnt seem to be so common in English I linked an explanation to it...)

Overall, the Freikorps were useful exactly one time, and otherwise had certainly only negative effects!
 
Top