Kurt Eisner, Bavaria's first prime minister, was assassinated in February 1919, shortly after the monarchy was abolished. An anti-Semite coordinated it at the intersection of Kardinal-Faulhaber-Straube. The odd monument was erected in 1989 and has since served as a memorial to the tragedy. Erika Maria Lankes created and developed it. The monument depicts the contour of a dead body, much like a crime scene. It is cut out of a steel plate and is fashioned in such a way that it is meant to last a lifetime. The monument is a powerful depiction of a historical character. however, despite its originality, the politicians called for a site that would be more representative. The consideration of Eisner’s figure was phenomenal – one equal to the person, who was the first to grant women the right to vote (Ablovatski, 2010). It took several years with arguments and disputes on the appearance of the memorial and later on the sculpture to put it up at Oberanger.
Kurt Eisner’s Biography
Kurt Eisner was born to Jewish parents, Emanuel Eisner and Levenstein, in 1867 in Berlin. In 1892, he married Elisabeth Hendrick and had five kids. They divorced in 1917, and he got remarried to Elsie Belli, with whom she gave birth to two children. Kurt Eisner majored in philosophy and chose to become a reporter in Marburg. He worked as a journalist and an editor for five years, and during this time, he published an article that brought about significant issues towards Kaiser Wilhelm II. He was later jailed for nine months for an attack on Kaiser through published articles. Eisner was acknowledged as a social-democratic individual and a Republican in Germany. In 1898, he joined SPD for tactical interests (Boyer, 2016). At the time, the German Social Democratic Party did not take an interest in factors that concerned the propaganda of the Republican, but rather focused on the goals and objectives of the entire aspect of social democracy.
By believing and acknowledging the ideologies of social democracy, he actively participated in fighting for political democracy and the provisions of socialist ideals. Thus, he joined the Vowarts editing firm in 1900 after Wilhelm Liebknecht’s death. However, due to world demand in the social democracy group, he was forced to resign from his editing work and took part in core political activities that were limited to Bavaria State. This did not stop him from touring in other parts of the German state for political agendas. Since 1907 up to 1910, Eisner became the chief editor for a media company named Frankische Tagespost in Nuremberg (Malkin, 2012). After that, he ended up working as a freelancer in Munich. At the height of WWI, Eisner chose to join a political group named the Independent Social Democratic group in the year 1917 and was jailed in 1918 for an act of treason and for inciting employees to strike.
Following his release from prison, he resumed his political activities such as the organization of the revolution that aimed at suppressing the monarchy government in Bavaria. Eisner declared the state of Bavaria as a Free State and Republic. At the end of 1918, it was acknowledged as the first state to be recognized as a Republic. Later on, he shared confidential information by leaking documents to Berlin on July of 1914. The information showed that World War I was started by a small group of militants from Prussia alongside other economic facilitators such as the capitalists, princes, industrialists, and politicians (Boyer, 2016). Further, the report showed that there was a political conference of socialists that was staged at Berne in Switzerland. Eisner was furious and attacked the moderate socialists in Germany for their lack of acknowledgment of the fact that they took part in initiating the World War I. Following his speech that accused the Germans and showed hostility to Prussia, a large group Germans immensely loathed him.
Development of the Monument
The monument’s positioning is meant to be a strategic move; the monument is placed on the floor, where people can walk over the sign of a dead body. This was the monument’s originally intended meaning, as Eisner’s followers felt that his assassination was a great betrayal. However, the monument evokes all sorts of negativity. There were many other activists, who succumbed to the struggle of freedom for the public good, but they have been commemorated in other better ways. The monument does not portray a positive image, but it has value behind the meaning. Conversely, in the case, where one has no idea of the historical facts behind the monument, they would have the wrong impression then.
The fact that people have to walk over the symbol of a dead body is not morally and socially acceptable. The monuments location signifies where the life of a legend was cruelly taken. Eisner was assassinated on that specific location, and the monument was constructed to stand as the commemoratory image for his followers. His blood was spilt onto the ground, and therefore, his followers felt that it would be the right form of signifying his life. Furthermore, the political heat that was ongoing hindered any attempts to construct a better monument, as Eisner was viewed as an enemy to the bigger portion of the public. His followers needed to instill the right form of spite against the other politicians for his assassination. The monument being placed on the ground showed the affirmation that his motions and revolutions would forever imprint in the minds of the Germans.
Historical Background
Kurt Eisner was regarded as the head of the Independent Socialist movement that focused on revolutionary acts of decisiveness. He resided in Munich from 1910 and opposed the World War I from its commencement. Eisner slowly earned public support based on the objectives of his revolutionary ideologies. He made a speech that criticized the government of Bavaria to a massive number of people, and later on, led a huge number of soldiers, employees, and other activists in marching across the city. It was then that he declared the city free from monarchy and the creation of a republican state. During this time, Eisner experienced success in politics and was made the prime minister of Bavaria. However, this success was short-lived, as he experienced difficulties in the political setting with his political partners. This was mainly from the SPD movement over their future stake in the revolutionary government.
Consequently, Eisner forced the employees, councils, and soldiers to bow down to the commands of the SPD. People began to doubt the ideologies of the movement, and he gradually lost the backing of most of the communists and anarchists. During the elections held in 1919, Independent Social Democrat was by far defeated by the opposition party because of the inability of the new bureaucratic system to provide the basic amenities. Additionally, due to instability within the state, the economic situation had worsened. Further, the agitation caused by the emergence and the development of extremist groups that were led by Eisner to propel the resignation of the previous regime so as to restore political stability. However, the efforts to restore political stability did not bear fruits, because Eisner was later assassinated in 1919 by a young ex-lieutenant in Munich (Mitchell, 2015). The act of partisan violence that was orchestrated by an individual of the right-wing significantly led to the transformation of the political scene in Bavaria. This was followed by a number of other assassination attempts against the opposing members of the government.
On that same day, a new revolutionary government that was mostly comprised of the left-wing group took power courtesy the authority of Ernst Niekisch, while they additionally demanded martial law. On April of 1919, the new government was still unable to restore order in Bavaria; this resulted in the emergence of two additional revolutionary groups. First, it was the emergence of an anarchist group that had idealistic views that included Erich Muhsam, Ernst Toller, Gustav, and Niekisch. The group had the aim of developing the Soviet Republic for Bavarian, with the hope of enabling a revolutionary move. However, the government did not last for more than seven days. Afterward, the communists that were led by a politician named Eugen Levine and Max replaced the Soviet Republic with another group of the Soviet Republic that had much more genuine ideologies. The second Republic was heavily suppressed by military forces that were brutal and caused bloodshed in mid-1919. This brutal government reaction led to the end of revolutionary attempts in Munich by the end of the sixth month.
Politically, Kurt Eisner foresaw the future of the people in Bavaria as a Republican state and detested the monarchy government. During his lifetime, very few supporters understood his ideologies and aspects that he stood for, and this was his strength and motivation to continue with his political activities. As such, after the death of Eisner, it led to the emergence and political establishment of other radical groups such as anarchists, who under the Soviet Republic movement also fought for the democratic republican state of Bavaria. Kurt Eisner is a great model to people in Munich, and a monument was built to remind the people of his impeccable works that later on played a significant role in the revolutionary.
A strong political upheaval between 1918 and 1919 resulted from the revolutionary struggles. This led to the unavoidable politicizing effect of the republic. The most opposing force towards the commemoration of Kurt Eisner was Weimar. This was done in a highly partisan manner, where later in 1933, another strong oppositional force was established from the Nazi (Ablovatski, 2010). They tried to use force and remove the memorials that would seem to undermine their official mnemonic consensus. This was also the peak era of the Weimar, who led in criticism against Kurt Eisner. The Weimar regime demonized Eisner’s attempts, branded his politics as chaotic and sources of violence and civic instability. The ideology that revolved around Eisner’s history was that of political freedom, but this got him into a series of fierce oppositional disputes.
Eisner’s 1918-1919 revolutions held up against the regimes that followed and posed a challenge towards the Weimar regime. Eisner’s revolutions played a key role towards the prevention of the transition of the society into a fascist model (Willer, 2011). It advocated for a more liberal nature of government. This led to the struggle of legacy commemoration in the city of Munich. It also led to the very first commemoration move in the city that was done after the assassination of Kurt Eisner. There was a proposed erection of an outstanding memorial on the front of the place of his murder that faced opposition from politicians, but later there were significant attempts. Immediately after he was assassinated, a group of unknown people spread sawdust over his puddle of blood, and then a chair was placed with Eisner’s portrait with a black ribbon behind it as a sign of grieve. Other commemorators included soldiers, who came and stuck their guns in the structure of a pyramid close to the site. The rest decorated the place with wreaths and flowers, while there was a sign that was erected that instructed the Proletarians to remove their hats while standing before the blood of Eisner.
Ideology
Eisner’s assassination was engulfed by controversy and various ideologies behind his commemoration. There was a chain of violence that erupted after his assassination and has been misunderstood for a long time. The modern-day Bavaria owes Eisner a great deal, especially for their name. Eisner may be viewed as a communist, who brought chaos and revolts in the states, and this has had a significant hit on his legacy; oppositely, it enshrouded his name in myth and controversy. His achievements have been overshadowed by these disagreements that surround his name. Later, this led to a protest from the Munich’s city council for the proposal of the change of name for a suburban street towards the commemoration of Eisner in 1969. In 1989, there was a repetition of the same after there was a proposal for erecting the same at the city center. His history is mainly a commemoration of his political achievements, but most had not acknowledged of the much he has succeeded in.
Across history, Munich had grappled over giving Eisner’s legacy the necessary attention. Since time in memorial, the city has been known to uphold the historical values and figures to the highest. However, Eisner has stood as the long forgotten figure until recently. For instance, there was a proposal for renaming the Munich’s central Marienplatz to the Kurt-Eisner-Platz, but failed to mature. His 90th anniversary in 2009 was also full of controversy, as it would not be completed to mark the day’s ceremony. However, despite all the arguments, his memorial monument marks the legacy of a man, who died while fighting for justice, peace, and a better future. The monument is a great symbol of political achievement and the liberation of people from oppressive laws and political enshrinements.
Political ideologies were major competing forces, and every regime tried to implement a system that would rule with best and keep the public under control. Political forces were at play and could have led to the success and the failure of states depending on the vigilance of the learned few or the general community. Eisner had a view of the direction that the communist government was taking and felt that there was the need to address the matter. His ideology was that of a political parliament, socialism, and trade unions. His ideology saw the transformation of the politics and the transparency in government engagements. The original steel plate sculpture showed the image of a man, who had met his demise at that exact location. It was a sign of the injustice that the government was capable of for those, who fought for better governance. It was meant to be a reminder and a spitting image of an evil orchestration through a graphic image on the assassination of a senior activist.
References
Ablovatski, E. (2010). The 1919 Central European Revolutions and the Judeo-Bolshevik Myth. European Review of History-Revue européenne D Histoire, 17(3), 473-489.
Boyer, J. W. (2016). Carl E. Schorske (1915-2015). Central European History, 49(02), 157-161.
Malkin, J. R. (2012). Ernst Toller’s Transformations: The Performance of a German-Jewish Identity. Jewish Theatre: Tradition in Transition and Intercultural Vistas, 131-145.
Mitchell, A. (2015). Revolution in Bavaria, 1918-1919: the Eisner regime and the Soviet Republic. Princeton University Press.
Willer, S. (2011). Heritage-Appropriation-Interpretation: The Debate on the Schiller Legacy in 1905. A Cultural History of Heredity III: 19th and Early 20th Centuries, 167.
