from Google AI:
The "Red Wedding" refers to a shocking massacre in Game of Thrones where Robb Stark, his mother Catelyn, and his army were betrayed and slaughtered at a wedding feast by their supposed allies, the Freys and Boltons, orchestrated by Tywin Lannister, violating sacred guest right for revenge and to end the Stark rebellion. The term signifies any event where a celebration turns into bloody betrayal, referencing the "red" of blood spilled amidst supposed feasting and unity, and also has historical roots in real massacres like Scotland's "Black Dinner".
Key Aspects of the Red Wedding:
- The Betrayal: Lord Walder Frey, angered by Robb Stark breaking a marriage pact, orchestrated the attack with Roose Bolton and Tywin Lannister's backing.
- The Violation: It brutally broke "guest right," a sacred custom of hospitality, turning a wedding meant for unity into a scene of horrific slaughter.
- The Victims: Robb Stark, his mother Catelyn, his pregnant wife Talisa, and most of his Northern forces were killed.
- The Symbolism: The name "Red Wedding" symbolizes the shocking contrast between a wedding's joy and the ensuing bloodshed, with "red" representing blood.
Inspiration & Broader Meaning:
- Historical Basis: Author George R.R. Martin drew inspiration from real historical events, particularly the Black Dinner (1440) and the Massacre of Glencoe (1692) in Scotland.
- Figurative Use: The term is now used more broadly to describe any situation involving unexpected, brutal betrayal, carnage, or a massacre disguised as something festive or peaceful.
Follow Up Reports:
WOW. If true... just WOW!
54 comments:
Another night. Another confrontation. Another Tragic Outcome. Another life lost because someone decided to resist law enforcement instead of complying and living to fight their case in court. When will these people wake up and see what is really going on, and what is really the problem! And when will the people of Minnesota understand that ICE is getting RID of the “BAD” people the people who are Criminals, the people who are Murderers, and Rapists, and who are stealing from your stores, and selling Drugs to your citizens and are Killing them from the sale of these Drugs? The people from ICE are not your Enemies! They are doing their job, the Job to Protect you from the people that you are Protesting FOR! While the precise second-by-second details of the Minneapolis shooting are still being debated, one fact remains stubbornly unfashionable to say out loud: the perpetrator was not an innocent bystander. He chose to interfere, to resist, and to escalate a volatile situation involving armed officers operating in a city already teetering on the edge of chaos.
This wasn’t a peaceful misunderstanding. This was a conscious decision to challenge authority in the middle of an enforcement action. Actions have consequences, and pretending otherwise is how Minneapolis ended up here in the first place.
What we’re watching in Minneapolis isn’t organic outrage or spontaneous civic engagement. It’s a well-funded, well-coordinated insurrection against governmental authority, carried out under the warm rhetorical blanket of “social justice.” Activist networks, political operatives, and ideologically captured officials have combined to create a hostile operating environment where law enforcement is deliberately restrained
If leadership cannot or will not act decisively, then leadership must change. Attorney General Pam Bondi and a Justice Department that confuses optics with outcomes are worse than useless—they’re dangerous. FBI Director Kash Patel, more interested in media tours than institutional repair, signals to radicals that the adults have left the room.
Your Governor Tim Walz and your Mayor Jacob Frey didn’t just “fail” to control the streets. They actively constrained law enforcement while legitimizing street-level resistance. That combination is toxic. When police are told to stand down, and mobs are told to stand up, the result is predictable disorder. Your leaders have it backwards!
You don’t see this level of sustained chaos in states where laws are enforced, deportations are carried out, and officials don’t flirt with insurrectionary rhetoric
The majority of the left-wing, it is certainly a very loud and abusive.. To them LE is randomly attacking people because of how they look or their political affiliation. The fact is LE is doing their job and that includes ICE. Have mistakes been made yes law-enforcement, including immigration enforcement has been making mistakes since they’re founding It’s called human error. But overwhelmingly most are doing the job correct.
The men and women of law-enforcement are black, white, Latino , Christian, Muslim, Jewish you name it from all sorts of backgrounds. And they are being horribly mistreated by the media along with their Democrat politician supporters. This is what cost Democrats in 2024 ie the BLM mindset… the lies about police and lying about people being racist…. Having political agitators screaming at police officers and interfering with their legal investigations with blow horn and physically interfering with legal law-enforcement actions that go back decades.. Hoping to cause a problem and get media coverage.
The Minnesota ICE Watch group of which slain Minneapolis protester And this might not even be a majority of the left-wing, but it is certainly a very loud and abusive portion of them. To them LE is randomly attacking people because of how they look or their political affiliation. The fact is LE is doing their job and that includes ICE. Have mistakes been made yes law-enforcement, including immigration enforcement has been making mistakes since they’re founding It’s called human error. But overwhelmingly most are doing the job correct.
. Having political agitators screaming at police officers and interfering with their legal investigations with blow horn Interfering with legal law-enforcement actions is a very bad idea. ..
The Minnesota ICE Watch group of which slain Minneapolis protester Renee Good was a member shared a detailed manual providing instructions on fighting police officers to free arrested radicals from their grasp was, and is wrong, And these is no doubt that Renee Good made some bad choices,.
This ain’t the party of Bill Clinton let alone JFK, or even Harry Truman. The anti LE narrative is a disaster for Democrats and it has to stop. One wonders perhaps who is behind this anti LE? is this some kind of a foreign operation or outside force. Because it’s bad for the two party system, And this might not even be a majority of the left-wing, but it is certainly a very loud and abusive portion of them. To them LE is randomly attacking people because of how they look or their political affiliation. The fact is LE is doing their job and that includes ICE. Have mistakes been made yes law-enforcement, including immigration enforcement has been making mistakes since they’re founding It’s called human error. But overwhelmingly most are doing the job correct.
The men and women of law-enforcement are black, white, Latino , Christian, Muslim, Jewish you name it from all sorts of backgrounds. And they are being horribly mistreated by the media along with their Democrat politician supporters. This is what cost Democrats in 2024 ie the BLM mindset… the lies about police and lying about people being racist…. Having political agitators screaming at police officers and interfering with their legal investigations with blow horn and physically interfering with legal law-enforcement actions that go back decades.. Hoping to cause a problem and get media coverage.
The Minnesota ICE Watch group of which slain Minneapolis protester Renee Good was a member shared a detailed manual providing instructions on fighting police officers to free arrested radicals from their grasp was, and is wrong.
.The anti LE narrative is a disaster for Democrats and it has to stop. One wonders perhaps who is behind this anti LE? is this some kind of a foreign operation or outside force
revolutionaries have always been dangerous towards law enforcement and their political opponents.
Democrats have been calling for violent resistance for sometime now. They contributed to this woman's death and not the President, and certainly not the fault of the people from ICS. The Men from Ice are only there to defuse what is going on there, and the Mayor, and Governor are only making things harder for them
revolutionaries have always been dangerous towards law enforcement anf their political opponents.
Democrats have been calling for violent resistance for sometime now. They contributed to this woman's death and not the President, and certainly not the fault of the people
from ICS. The Men from Ice are only there to defuse what is going on there, and the Mayor, and Governor are only making things harder for them was a member shared a detailed manual providing instructions on fighting police officers to free arrested radicals from their grasp was, and is wrong.
This ain’t the party of Bill Clinton let alone JFK, or even Harry Truman. The anti LE narrative is a disaster for Democrats and it has to stop. One wonders perhaps who is behind this anti LE? is this some kind of a foreign operation or outside force. Because it’s bad for the two party system,
revolutionaries have always been dangerous towards law enforcement anf their political opponents.
Democrats have been calling for violent resistance for sometime now. They contributed to this woman's death and not the President, and certainly not the fault of the people rom ICS. The Men from Ice are only there to defuse what is going on there, and the Mayor, and Governor are only making things harder for them
The men and women of law-enforcement are black, white, Latino , Christian, Muslim, Jewish you name it from all sorts of backgrounds. And they are being horribly mistreated by the media along with their Democrat politician supporters. This is what cost Democrats in 2024 ie the BLM mindset… the lies about police and lying about the people from ICE being racist is Stupid, and wrong.…
I can't say I know what this post is about, given that you didn't say. You only pasted in some info about a fictional wedding that went wrong. I must be less interested in what is going on politically in China than you. Even though you say the "donroe doctrine" means the US doesn't meddle in the eastern hemisphere. Yet you follow China and rightturd politics in Europe bigly.
btw, it seems that a White man being shot in MN made a difference. When the victim is a dyke she gets her name dragged through the mud. That might be why you have written no post calling Alex Pretti a "domestic terrorist". donald is refusing to say he is.
Would you have been more interested if DJT had had the Joint Chiefs assassinated?
This may have been the Chinese equivalent.
China is in the Eastern hemisphere, which isn't in the US "sphere of influence". I'm more interested in the fact that donald trump has ordered the assassination of fishermen off the coast of Venezuela and American citizens by the White Supremacist terrorist organization called ICE.
I just heard on the news that DHS posted a recruitment ad on Instagram proclaiming "we’ll have our home again", which is a song popularized in neo-Nazi spaces and used in white nationalist calls for a race war.
Though you will likely insist this is an example of "race non-essentialism"๐๐๐
Nope. National Essentialism (vs immigrants from other nations). aka: Nativism.
The Irish were white too...
Sounds to me that you just confirmed that maga is a White Supremacist movement. Which I already knew. But you confirmed it by excusing the use of a White Supremacist slogan. Me, I'd be troubled if members of my movement were using White Supremacist rhetoric. But you're fine with it.
"we’ll have our home again", which is a song popularized in neo-Nazi spaces and used in white nationalist calls for a race war.
That is White Supremacists, not "National Essentialists". The song was chosen and used ON PURPOSE. Because the administration is White Supremacist. That's the Occam's Razor explanation.
You must be waiting for donald trump to tell you what to think about the murder of Alex Pretti. That would explain why you refuse to say anything. donald said they would look into it. Now you're worried that saying something now might contradict what donald trump says later.
This is not to diminish what is going on in this country or to belittle how horrible and abusive this mass deportation initiative has gotten. It is awful and it sickening. Yet, there is a huge difference between unfairly facing deportation vs being declared a non citizen bc of your Jewish ethnicity and then hiding from the systematic genocide that killed 6 millions Jews. It’s not the same. Not all tragedies are parallels.
This is not to say that people shouldn’t stand up for the injustice happening right now. You should . You should use your voice. You should call it out and you should fight it. You should hold elected officials accountable. You should be able to do all of that without appropriating and using our generational trauma for political ammo. You don’t need to use our pain to legitimize your concerns, as your concerns can stand on its own.
Not to mention, this hands the opponents easy ammunition to dismiss legitimate concerns as hysterical. It literally hurts the fight. The only thing it has been successful in doing is upsetting holocaust survivors and their descendants who for the most part as a collective are asking for everyone to stop the trivializing
When or Will the Liberals/Progressives Ever Learn: Don’t Interfere With Law Enforcement—or Tragedy that Usually Follows? It’s the The Same Old Lesson Is Ignored Over, andOner and Again, and Again. The Outcome is Always the Same. Another Confrontation Turns Deadly, and the Same Chorus Rises: Outrage First, Facts Later. The Alex Pretti case in Minnesota is being spun into a “Morality Stage-play about “State Violence,” but the uncomfortable truth is simpler and far less ideological. When you Confront Law Enforcement in the middle of an arrest, Refuse commands, fight officers, and do so while armed, you are just as well be gambling with your life. This is not controversial. It is reality.
You can chant slogans, sing songs, hold up signs all day long, but gravity doesn’t care. Neither does a chaotic arrest scene where officers are making split-second decisions under stress, with all kinds of noise, confusion, and threats, the outcome is always the same!
Pretti unlawfully interfered with a police action. He involved himself in the arrest of a woman in a white coat. A CBP officer shoved him back. Instead of disengaging, Pretti made physical contact with that officer. That alone crosses into federal felony territory.
From there, the situation spiraled. Alex Pretti appeared to be under arrest. He did not comply. He fought officers. During the struggle, officers discovered he was armed. You can hear the panic in the calls: “Gun, Gun, Gun.” An officer removes the weapon as ALEX Pretti remains noncompliant.
Then comes the moment that changes everything. A gunshot is heard. Alex Pretti’s right hand comes up from his waistline, holding a black object. In that instant, no officer on Earth is obligated to pause and debate intent. Any objective officer would reasonably fear for his life and seek to neutralize the threat. Reasonable, But Not Perfect!
The law does not require the police to make perfect decisions. It requires reasonable ones based on exigent circumstances. Exigent means unfolding, dangerous, and irreversible in seconds. A suspect who has already fought officers, has already been armed, and then reaches toward his waist with an unknown object is not owed the benefit of hindsight.
And Bingo! A man is Dead!
In regards to Steve's moronic comment, obviously, to ICE, "noncompliant" means living. At least when a White Supremacist ICE terrorist gets angry. Then "noncompliant" means not dead. Alex Pretti was 100 percent subdued and the gun removed from his possession. THEN he was murdered by 2 ICE terrorists who shot him in the back.
"Alex Pretti’s right hand comes up from his waistline, holding a black object" is FALSE. He never had his gun in his hand. He was holding his phone and recording. He wasn't still holding his phone when he was subdued on the ground. You are full of sh!t, "Steve".
Ockham interprets "home" as nation, not race.
^^Never played the Shoot, Don't Shoot video with a deaf, dumb kid pulling a wallet out of his back pocket with an "I am deaf and dumb" card in it after being ordered to raise and show his hands^^
;P... Even I shot the deaf kid when I played.
Minus: Ockham interprets "home" as nation, not race.
"we’ll have our home again", which is a song popularized in neo-Nazi spaces and used in white nationalist calls for a race war.
So, neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are all unfairly maligned "National Essentialists"? They only think that rich sports athletes who are Black all have low IQs, which doesn't make them racist?๐๐๐
If that is the case, why do you insist that the KKK is made up of Democrats, when Democrats (also according to you) hate White people and believe in Black Supremacy?
Thinking people don't buy your contradictory nonsense.
On the other hand, I think rightturds who are caught contradicting themselves are PROUD of themselves. They're like, "yes, and what are you going to do about it?" Because they (you) know a lot of morons will believe whatever lie is told in the moment. Which is all you care about (what lie works at the time it is told). Not consistency. I'll give you an example...
Wearing face masks during covid was hazardous to a person's health. Not ICE terrorists can run around, engage in strenuous activity, and still wear masks with no ill effects.
Another example would be the assertion that when Joe Biden was president, people getting violent was to be expected, due to people getting fed up with Joe Biden's policies on the border. As I recall, you defended the guy who shot up a walmart in Texas, killing several people. You blamed Democrats and wrote that reactions like this from frustrated people was to be expected.
But, now that king donald is in charge, protesting and getting murdered by ICE is also the fault of Democrats. People protesting (not shooting up walmarts) deserve to be shot in the back. Meaning, whether it is a rightturd "protesting" by shooting up a walmart or a Leftist protesting and getting shot in the back (executed), it is ALWAYS Democrats who are to blame.
Under donald trump (first term): Mentally ill people can have guns.
Also under donald trump: people protesting ICE terrorism can be shot for having a gun they never brandish but simply have on their person. Even AFTER being the gun is taken away. They can STILL be hot in the back multiple times.
Alex Pretti wasn't reaching for anything. He was on the ground and his gun was taken away. He took no actions that would have reasonably lead an ICE terrorist to believe he was going for his gun. He didn't have it any longer.
You say they didn't know he didn't have the gun? I call BULLPLOP. The ICE terrorists weren't even questioned. So, if that is what they are claiming, we don't know. Their names aren't even known. They were whisked away. When their identities are discovered they should be charged, tried and convicted of murder. Because that is what happened.
So, your anti-racist and anti-fascist glasses don't carry the same "mirroring" prescription problem? Like a vampyre, they don't allow you to see your own reflection? One covering objective "surface appearances" and the other harbouring subjective "inner intentions". Sounds like two prescriptions intent on demonstrating the same truism.
ps - mentally ill people (instilled with white guilt-pride mythologies) DO have guns (as shown in Minneapolis).
Don Quixote's gotta be Don Quixote... pursuing his eschaton (Dolcinea)...
He didn't have a phone in his hand now? Wow... that's an alternate fact that you've already discounted.
Minus: He didn't have a phone in his hand now? Wow... that's an alternate fact that you've already discounted.
That depends on when "now" is. Pretti had his phone out and was filming before he was tackled to the ground. After that, he did not. What is the "alternate fact"? That someone can't hold on to a phone when they are being cuffed? You just keep making up facts. As I already pointed out, we haven't heard from either shooter that either mistook the phone for a gun. Not that it would have mattered, as he wasn't holding either.
Minus: ps - mentally ill people (instilled with white guilt-pride mythologies) DO have guns (as shown in Minneapolis).
Right. The mentally ill ICE terrorists did have guns in Minneapolis. And they murdered two US citizens. Neither party (murderers or murdered person) were instilled with any imaginary "white guilt-pride mythologies".
Joe, you did not get it?
This so-called. Self-promotive. Verbally ANTI-MAGA. DEMN.
Just now wholeheartedly admitted following dRump's latest policy. ;^p
//China is in the Eastern hemisphere, which isn't in the US "sphere of influence".
//Alex Pretti wasn't reaching for anything. He was on the ground and his gun was taken away. He took no actions that would have reasonably lead an ICE terrorist to believe he was going for his gun. He didn't have it any longer.
//You say they didn't know he didn't have the gun?
Because that is IMPOSSIBLE??? if one have ONE gun... and disarmed, but COULD have ANOTHER ONE? Concealed.
Qtard: Just now wholeheartedly admitted following dRump's latest policy. ;^p ... Because that is IMPOSSIBLE??? if one have ONE gun... and disarmed, but COULD have ANOTHER ONE? Concealed.
Acknowledging the existence of isn't "following". What a dope. As for the gun, you're right... And, the found the first one, but there was no way to know if he didn't have another concealed gun. And, if they found that one, there was no way of knowing if he didn't have another one concealed. And so on and so on. He might have been concealing dozens of guns on his body. Though none were in his hand or any danger to any of the ICE terrorists. From now on perhaps ICE terrorist should assume everyone has concealed guns they can produce in milliseconds and use to start killing ICE terrorists. You might agree, but you are a proven moron.
Dervy's armchair is so big that he now thinks himself qualified to be head of ICE. Fear not mere mortals, Capt. Hindsight has arrived to analyze the situation!
When can your ICE fans and supporters expect you in Minneapolis to save the day, Derv?
wtf are you talking about? The ICE terrorists (as per your "capt Hindsight" narrative) made bad decisions in the moment? I say that is BS. They weren't properly trained, for one thing. If they actually did think there was a threat when there was not, that definitely was a factor.
However, once a suspect is disarmed and subdued you don't shoot him in the back because "he might have another gun, concealed" (as per the moron Qtard). How would he unconcel and fire it when he is cuffed?? Get real. Your BS makes absolutely no sense at all.
Though I think that the ICE terrorists committed a murder on purpose. They got the message that they could get away with killing and took the opportunity to shoot a "libtard".
How the fVck would I save the day??
with your brilliant "no telephone in hand" analysis of your armchair tactical situation, of course
..cuz that was in the seconds previous!
...and ALL the agents in the ensuing scuffle were aware of this.
Minus: ...and ALL the agents in the ensuing scuffle were aware of this.
Exactly. They all knew he didn't have his phone. They knew he was disarmed of his gun. Why this was obviously an execution. There is no statute of limitations in regards to murder. A future administration can cooperate in a prosecution of the responsible ICE terrorists. This is obvious to everyone who sees the videos and acknowledges the facts. People who (like you) aren't gaslighting. So I'd say these ICE terrorists have a lot to worry about. I'd also say my input is completely unnecessary and not needed.
lol! The inflammable nitrous oxide you're leaking will soon have us ALL laughing...
//Acknowledging the existence of isn't "following". What a dope
Yep. You are dope that following all kinds of shitty notions.
Yawn.
//As for the gun, you're right... And, the found the first one, but there was no way to know if he didn't have another concealed gun. And, if they found that one, there was no way of knowing if he didn't have another one concealed. And so on and so on. He might have been concealing dozens of guns on his body. Though none were in his hand or any danger to any of the ICE terrorists. From now on perhaps ICE terrorist should assume everyone has concealed guns they can produce in milliseconds and use to start killing ICE terrorists. You might agree, but you are a proven moron.
Yap.
Totally alike with 6Jan_Terrorists.
Which was just walking by streets, but was assumed that they bonna.... OVERTHROW GOVERNMENT, BUGA-GA-GA-GAHHHH!!!
And you are correct. You ARE "proven moron", cause you wholeheartedly agreed with such idea -- that people can be called "terrorists" just on the whim of DEMN cretins
You laugh because you think fascism is winning. For now it is, but people who love democracy are fighting back. The moron Qtard is also a fascism lover, proven by his unending support for terrorists who tried to overthrow the government. And now his support for fascists who have taken over the government and are executing citizens in the streets. Walking the streets and not entering federal buildings and trashing them while hunting for legislators to murder (like the J6 democracy haters).
Stalin and Mao both proved that Leftists Authoritarianism is 10x worse than Fascism. They certainly killed more of their own citizens than Hitler ever did.
So, you ADMIT that Hitler was a rightturd? I thought you said previously that Hitler was a Leftist because he hijacked the NAZI party and lied about what he would do as its leader? I thought your argument was that he didn't lie and that he was a socialist? Your 180 flip regarding Hitler/Nazism is an interesting development.
In any case, I asked Copilot for a fact check on what you wrote and got this reply...
๐คYes, Stalin and Mao caused more total deaths than Hitler.
No, this does not prove “leftist authoritarianism is worse.”
Yes, the blogger is contradicting his earlier claim that Hitler was a socialist.
Yes, Nazism is universally classified as far‑right fascism, not socialism.
The blogger is mixing facts with rhetoric, which is why the comment feels inconsistent.๐
Stalin and Mao promised things the people wanted, which caused them to cooperate. At first. Of course it turned out that Stalin and Mao lied. They weren't Leftists at all. Leftists are concerned about the citizens and don't mass murder them. Stalin and Mao promised things people wanted, but betrayed their promises for their own benefit (enriching themselves and a small group of elites).
We see this less frequently on the right because rightturds offer things most people don't want. Such as demonizing "the other" and promising to persecute them. As donald trump is doing. But he also lied. When he said he was going to go after "the worst of the worst". This, we can see now, was clearly a lie. Though I knew he was lying. You knew he was lying. But, unlike me, you wanted donald trump to go after ALL "illegals" and not only "the worst of the worst". You are enjoying the cruelty Turd-2 is inflicting on immigrants and the Left.
Because you're a fascist. While Lefties disavow leaders who claim they want to bring socialism to their citizens when it turns out they lied. You don't see me saying "Stalin and Mao did a great job and communism rocks".
Authoritarianism isn't unique to fascism. And on the Right, it's the property that make Right rule illegitimate.
And no, Hitler started as a Communist... and only rebelled when he learned that most of the Communists he formerly supported were Jewish.
Minus: Hitler started as a Communist.
He didn't.
Hitler served as his military units representative to Kurt Eisner's "People's State of Bavaria"... but Eisner was a Jew... which led Hitler to switch to the NAZIs after Eisner's death.
Google AI:
Yes, Kurt Eisner (1867–1919) was Jewish. Born in Berlin to Jewish parents, Emanuel Eisner and Hedwig Levenstein, he came from a liberal Jewish background. Despite not being religious, his Jewish heritage was a significant factor in the intense anti-semitic attacks he faced as the first socialist Prime Minister of Bavaria.
After Eisner died, the pro-Soviet Communist's took over (also Jews). This prompted a revolt and revolution by the German Army and Freikorps... and the rise of Hitler's reactionary Anti-Semitism
Google AI:
After World War I, Adolf Hitler remained in the German army in Munich and, during the spring 1919 suppression of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, was briefly associated with the anti-communist paramilitary Freikorps Epp. He was hired by the unit to root out communists within the military and witnessed the violent crackdown, which helped shape his early political career.
Role in Munich: In April/May 1919, Hitler stayed on in Munich, which was under the control of the Bavarian Soviet Republic-suppressing Freikorps units, including the Freikorps Epp.
Anti-Communist Activity: While not a typical Freikorps fighter on the front lines, Hitler served as an education officer (instruction officer) for the army, specifically tasked with counter-intelligence to identify soldiers with communist leanings.
Political Development: His experience in this role helped him transition from a soldier to a political agent for the Reichswehr's "education" department (the army's intelligence wing), allowing him to meet Dietrich Eckart and Ernst Rรถhm, both influential in his future rise.
Connection to Epp: Franz Ritter von Epp later provided funds for the Nazi party, including aiding the acquisition of the Vรถlkischer Beobachter in 1920.
Although Hitler was not a formal member in the sense of being a combatant, he operated within the same anti-leftist, pro-militarist environment as the Freikorps Epp during this critical period.
In other words... Hitler "switched sides" in Bavaria... from originally suppressing the Freikorps with the Communists, to actively supporting them and rooting out pro-Soviet Communists. In other words, he joined the "winning" side.
Under the short-lived revolutionary government of Kurt Eisner in Bavaria (November 1918 – February 1919), the military was in a state of chaotic transition, characterized by the collapse of the old Imperial structure, the rise of soldiers' councils, and a lack of reliable, central control.
Key aspects of the army's status during this period included:
Collapse of Traditional Command: Following the revolution on November 7-8, 1918, and King Ludwig III's release of soldiers from their oath, the hierarchical command structure of the Royal Bavarian Army vanished.
Soldiers' Councils: Soldiers elected representatives (Vertrauensmรคnner) to councils, which held significant influence and power in the early days of the revolution, often acting independently of the new government.
Unreliable Security Force: Eisner, heading a weak coalition, lacked a stable power base and struggled to establish a regular security force. The military was fragmented into various factions, including soldiers returning from the front, local militia, and radicalized armed workers.
"Red Guard" vs. Regular Units: While some soldiers aligned with the radical left (forming elements of what would become the Red Army), others remained in traditional, albeit disorganized, units.
Transition to Reichswehr: As the government attempted to restore order, the remaining units of the old army were rapidly demobilized, and a Bavarian contingent of the Reichswehr (the new German national army) began to form under central government orders, which was often conservative and anti-left.
Eisner's government was ultimately too weak to command the army effectively, and the security situation in Munich deteriorated rapidly until his assassination in February 1919, after which a full Soviet Republic was declared, leading to a much more radical, yet still chaotic, armed force.
---
Under Kurt Eisner’s revolutionary Bavarian government (Nov 1918–Feb 1919), Freikorps units existed in a state of tentative, hostile opposition. While Eisner sought to establish a socialist republic without traditional military reliance, the rising threat of radical leftist movements forced the government to tolerate and eventually rely on these counter-revolutionary, right-wing paramilitary groups, which ultimately sought to destroy his administration and the council system.
Key aspects of the status of Freikorps under Eisner:
Initial Hostility: Eisner aimed for a peaceful revolution and distrusted traditional military structures and right-wing militarists.
Rising Necessity: As Communist and anarchist uprisings grew (specifically the Spartacist threat), Eisner's government was forced to accept help from paramilitary units to maintain order, even though many Freikorps members hated the socialist government.
"Enemies Within": The Freikorps in Bavaria were composed of nationalist, anti-communist, and often monarchist soldiers, who viewed Eisner as a traitor and "enemy within".
Post-Assassination Action: After Eisner’s assassination on February 21, 1919, the Freikorps were utilized to brutally crush the subsequent Bavarian Soviet Republic (Rรคterepublik), which followed in April 1919.
Units like the Freikorps Epp were active in Bavaria and were part of the broader counter-revolutionary violence.
Hitler was an elected leader of Eisner's German Army (Reichswehr/ Volkswehr) not Freikorps)...
Under Kurt Eisner’s revolutionary Bavarian government (November 1918 – February 1919), the distinction between the traditional German Army (Reichswehr) and the Freikorps was defined by their ideological alignment and relationship to the new socialist leadership. While the regular army was in a state of chaotic transition and often viewed with suspicion by Eisner, the Freikorps were right-wing paramilitary units that, despite being used by the national government to crush communists, were ideologically opposed to the democratic and socialist nature of the Republic.
The German Army under Eisner
Loyalty & Composition: Following the collapse of the monarchy, the regular army in Bavaria was demoralized and fragmented. Eisner, a pacifist, intended to replace the traditional, elite-driven officer corps with a more democratic "People's Army" (Volkswehr).
Ideology: The officer corps of the regular army was generally anti-left and anti-republican, despite being under the command of a revolutionary socialist government.
Function: Eisner struggled to maintain control over regular army units, many of which favored returning to the old order, placing him in a precarious position between radical workers and conservative military forces.
The Freikorps under Eisner
Nature: The Freikorps were private, volunteer paramilitary units formed by demobilized soldiers, nationalists, and adventurers who were unable to reintegrate into civilian society.
Ideology: They were fervently anti-communist, anti-socialist, and right-wing nationalist. They viewed the revolution that brought Eisner to power as a "stab in the back" (Dolchstoรlegende).
Function: While Eisner tried to avoid relying on them initially, the national government (under Noske) eventually utilized Freikorps to brutally suppress the subsequent "Bavarian Soviet Republic" (Rรคterepublik) that emerged after Eisner's assassination.
Methods: Unlike the regular army, Freikorps units operated with extreme violence and often ignored official orders, acting with high autonomy.
Key Differences
Control: The regular army was theoretically under the control of the socialist government, whereas the Freikorps were independent mercenaries who often acted without official orders.
Political Stance: Regular army personnel were generally conservative and anti-left, but the Freikorps were actively fascist-leaning and proto-Nazi in their ideology, seeking to destroy the socialist government.
Methods: Freikorps were far more brutal, utilizing "white terror" tactics against communists and socialists in Munich, often executing suspects without trial, which was not the official policy of the regular army units.
In short, the regular army was the disoriented remnant of the old state, while the Freikorps were a new, ideological, and violent force acting to undo the very revolution Eisner had spearheaded.
Hitler was the elected representative of his "soldier's council" (Red Army)...
from Google AI:
During the Bavarian Soviet Republic (April 6–May 3, 1919), the official German Reichswehr was considered an enemy, while a new "Red Army" (sometimes referred to as part of the Volkswehr or people's militia) was formed by the communist leadership to defend the state. The Reichswehr and paramilitary Freikorps ultimately suppressed the republic.
Status of the Reichswehr: The official national army (Reichswehr) and its affiliated Freikorps (volunteer paramilitary units) were seen as counter-revolutionary forces by the Bavarian Soviet Republic. They were actively engaged in fighting to overthrow the Soviet government.
The Red Army (Volkswehr): Upon seizing power, the communist leadership under Eugen Levinรฉ established a "Bavarian Red Army." This force was composed of factory workers and members of the Workers' and Soldiers' Councils.
Conflict: The Red Army (Volkswehr) successfully defeated the moderate, pre-Soviet government's militia forces during the "Palm Sunday Putsch" in April 1919.
Suppression: In early May 1919, 39,000 Reichswehr and Freikorps troops, acting under the direction of the central Weimar government, invaded Munich and crushed the Soviet Republic.
The Reichswehr was not part of the Soviet structure but rather the instrument of its destruction, while the Soviet-controlled troops were organized as a revolutionary militia.
more Google AI:
During the 1919 Bavarian Soviet Republic, Adolf Hitler maintained a low-profile, opportunistic role within the military, navigating the chaotic revolutionary period in Munich by serving the ruling socialist government. He was elected a deputy battalion representative for his regiment, continued working in the military, and reportedly attended a socialist funeral, suggesting an attempt to survive and keep his position rather than participating in ideological, high-level, "Red Army" activity.
Key details regarding Hitler's role in 1919:
Military Survival Mode: After the assassination of Kurt Eisner, Hitler continued to serve as a Vertrauensmann (trusted agent/representative) in his regiment while the communist "Rรคterepublik" (Soviet Republic) was in power.
Elected Representative: On April 15, 1919, during the peak of the "Red Republic," Hitler was chosen as a Deputy Battalion Representative, which required him to be in contact with the socialist/communist leadership.
Ambiguous Allegiance: Reports suggest Hitler may have initially appeared to support the Socialist Party as a means to stay in the army, and in some contexts, was described as a "communist" or "soviet" supporter, according to historians such as Reddit user askhistorians and Anthony G. Flood.
Post-Revolution Shift: After the Soviet Republic was crushed by the Reichswehr in May 1919, Hitler immediately switched sides, acting as an informant to help identify those who had supported the government he had served, notes Anthony G. Flood.
Transition to Politics: Following these events, he was appointed an intelligence agent (Verbindungsmann) by the new government in June 1919 to teach anti-communist, nationalist, and antisemitic ideas, leading to his involvement with the German Workers' Party (DAP).
This period was later omitted or recontextualized in Hitler's own accounts, such as Mein Kampf, to hide his temporary alignment with the "Soviet" regime, say Commentary Magazine.
Hitler led his army unit's "soviet"...
Google AI:
"Soviet" translates from the Russian word ัะพะฒะตั (sovet), meaning "council," "assembly," "advice," or "harmony". It refers to the representative governing bodies or councils of workers that formed the basis of the Soviet Union's political structure.
Via Copilot...
๐คWhat the blogger is doing...
They’re taking:
The fact that Hitler was a soldier’s representative.
The fact that Munich briefly had a socialist/communist government.
The fact that Hitler stayed in the army during that period.
The fact that some leaders were Jewish.
…and then drawing a conclusion that historians do not support.
⭐ Bottom line: The blogger’s claim is not accurate.
Hitler was never a Communist.
He did not “start on the left.”
He did not “switch sides because of Jews.”
He did not support the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
He did not join the Red Army.
He was a nationalist extremist from the beginning, and his brief administrative role in 1919 Munich was about survival, not ideology.
It’s a classic case of: “true facts, false narrative.”๐
Post a Comment