For the "new type of Freikorps fighter, it is completely irrelevant from which social camp he came," wrote Ernst von Salomon in 1936. At that time, the paramilitary units whose violent interventions had shaped the early years of the Weimar Republic had only just become history. Salomon processed his experiences as a Freikorps fighter in Germany, in the Baltic States, in Upper Silesia and as an accomplice in the murder of Walther Rathenau in several books – most successfully in his autobiographical bestselling novel "The Questionnaire" from 1951.
His lack of interest in a more detailed socio-historical look at the personnel of the combat units has long been shared by historians. When the social composition of paramilitary units is discussed at all, blanket statements dominate, based less on data-driven research than on preconceived notions. After that, the Freikorps appear above all as a gathering place of decommissioned World War II officers, middle-class and militaristic students threatened by social decline who wanted to compensate for the experience they had missed out on at the front because of their youth.
The working class, on the other hand, is regarded as a natural antagonist of the Freikorps. At first glance, this is plausible: within the borders of the Reich, the Freikorps were used by the Social Democratic government primarily to fight rebellious workers – mostly from the radical left-wing spectrum. On this basis, many historians assume that the vast majority of workers, who were neither communists nor involved in such conflicts, also rejected the Freikorps.
Temporary volunteers under the command of local Reichswehr posts
In his book, Jan-Philipp Pomplun undertakes a long overdue review of these assessments and breaks new ground for it: He uses the regular rolls – lists of members with information on age, education, profession and other characteristics – of eleven Freikorps from Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg, which were deployed at all important locations, as sources. Almost 20,000 men were organized here, which is estimated to correspond to just under a tenth of all Freikorps members. Pomplun's immediate database is a representative sample taken from this material with information on almost 3200 fighters. North and Central German Freikorps had to be left out because there was no quantitatively comparable information on them.
The author rejects the possible objection that the geographical side could also be accompanied by a sociological bias with good reason: Because the areas considered comprise very different regions, both agricultural and industrial, they are sufficiently representative of the entire empire from a social and economic point of view.
Pomplun's results paint a new picture of the social profile of the Freikorps: neither officers, cadets nor declassed members of the middle class played a numerically prominent role in them. The same goes for the students. Those who wanted to engage in paramilitary activities did so mainly as temporary volunteers under the command of local Reichswehr posts. There, unlike in the Freikorps, they were able to elect their leaders and continue to study because they only served periodically.