Yes, sorry, we fibbed. No, this image from the title image was NOT taken at one of the Gen Z protests last Saturday, but in July this year during riots in Düsseldorf following a World Cup soccer match. But perhaps you didn’t notice that right away, did you? All the more reason why it’s good that you click on articles instead of falling for images and claims taken out of context. Because yes, such images, like some that genuinely emerged on Saturday, are not at all unusual and are even completely normal at some soccer matches. Without anyone raising a collective outcry. But one thing at a time. We promised the “real images.” So: This is what the images from the Gen Z protests in Hamburg or Frankfurt a. M. looked like, which we took ourselves live on site:

Yes, that doesn’t look spectacular at all and, honestly, it looks pretty boring. But that’s mostly what it was. The truth is probably more complex than some media outlets and politicians assume. In this article, we show you a differentiated view of the Gen Z protests. We try to contextualize what the media debate looks like and how well—or less well—some media outlets have reported on it. That’s also why we used the satirical hook of the false title image. We’ll come back to that later. We also put the narratives of politicians and the media into context so that you can find out what REALLY happened on Saturday. And who is distorting the debate in order to manipulate you.

What really happened at the Gen Z protests on Saturday?

But let’s start at the beginning: On Saturday, October 31, there were protests in more than 30 cities. The group “Gen Z regelt” called for the protests. According to its own account, “Gen Z regelt” no longer wants to stand by and watch while decisions about its future are made without it. In another article, we summarized what is currently known about the (still very new) group.

https://volksverpetzer.de/analyse/gen-z-proteste/

Since we, like everyone else, will now be writing a lot about the reactions to the protest, here once again are the group’s demands. Because they are currently being buried beneath the instrumentalization.

• Money for schools, addiction services and psychotherapy
• that life be affordable
• a fair distribution of burdens and no austerity at the expense of the younger generation
• no compulsory military service
• protection of fundamental rights and no expansion of “surveillance”
• more climate protection

In the days before the protests, several CDU politicians warned, without any basis, of riots at the protests. Alexander Throm, the Union’s domestic policy spokesman in the Bundestag, told Handelsblatt, without any prompting, that the demonstrations must not be hijacked by “left-wing extremist forces and criminals from the migrant milieu.” Hesse’s Interior Minister Roman Poseck considered it “particularly alarming” “that the protests are also being infiltrated by left-wing extremists who are letting their violence run free.” We will put these baseless (!) accusations into context later.

There was justified criticism beforehand

There was also justified criticism of the organization. The Federal Student Conference, as well as former supporters such as influencer and student Gianni Matheja, also distanced themselves from “Gen Z regelt.” Both statements mention violence. However, neither statement addresses specifically to what extent “Gen Z regelt” is prepared to use violence.

Beforehand, we were unable to identify any specific calls for or plans to use violence on the part of the initiative. What is known, however, is that the “Gen Z regelt” movement clearly distances itself from violence on its website: “Against all violence: Our protest is peaceful, without exception,” it says on the homepage.

Representatives of the group had already criticized the fact that, before the protests, the discourse surrounding them revolved around potential violent riots rather than the group’s demands. Thus, according to an organizer of the demonstration in Munich, the impression that they were not being taken seriously was confirmed.

And lo and behold: Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz confirms precisely this impression today. Even after the protests, Merz does not see the need to change anything about his policies. “The Federal Chancellor feels vindicated in continuing his policies,” government spokesman Stefan Kornelius told the dts news agency on Monday.

One hundred thousand demonstrated peacefully across Germany

If you add up the official figures together, you arrive at at least a mid-five-figure number of Gen Z demonstrators. The organizers say 120,000 people took part. Tens of thousands, mainly young people, demonstrated peacefully across Germany on Saturday.

In five of the more than 30 cities where demonstrations took place, riots broke out toward the end of the demonstrations and afterward. Important: The riots often had nothing to do with the actual Gen Z protests, as the police themselves also said. These were the major cities of Frankfurt, Berlin, Cologne and Hamburg and Stuttgart. Pyrotechnics were set off, barricades were erected and police officers were attacked. In Frankfurt, people continued rioting after the demonstration had been broken up, smashing shop windows and looting stores. According to current information, this rioting was primarily carried out everywhere by various groups outside the demonstrators, who joined later.

As frightening and condemnable as the images are: This is nothing entirely new in Germany. Nor is it proof that the Gen Z protests were particularly violent. Even though in some cases they really had nothing whatsoever to do with the incidents in question. And we must not forget: It was Halloween at the same time. Riots with attacks on emergency responders on Halloween night have also occurred in previous years. And at what other, much more frequent event are pyrotechnics regularly set off and police officers pelted with objects? Exactly, after soccer matches.

Riots of this kind rarely otherwise make headlines or spark debate

The image we used in the title image to get you to read this article (sorry again for that^^), for example, comes from riots in Düsseldorf following the World Cup match between Canada and Morocco. Violence and pyrotechnics are a regular occurrence after soccer matches. So regular, in fact, that researchers were able to establish that between 2011 and 2015, the number of violent offenses on soccer match days rose by 21.5 percent compared with other days. Eight percent of violent offenses in the affected municipalities were connected with soccer matches, causing costs of 194 million euros. A considerable proportion of the increase could be explained by attacks on police officers by fan groups.

More recent reports also show that violent groups repeatedly instigate brutal brawls around soccer matches, in which stones may also be thrown. On the positive side: At least in the 2024/2025 season, the number of people injured in connection with soccer matches declined. The use of pyrotechnics, however, rose significantly.

Violence is always condemnable, and we do not want to downplay that here. We want peaceful demonstrations and soccer matches in which no one is harmed, and as a society we should work toward that. But: After the riots in Düsseldorf, did anyone demand that soccer matches no longer be authorized in Germany? Are soccer fans collectively presumed to be violent hooligans? Was possible and actual violence debated so loudly before, during and after the match that the result of the game could barely be heard anymore?

All of that happened at the Gen Z demonstrations.

That is why we used this hook to draw this comparison.

Ban-happy CDU responds to the Gen Z protests

After the riots in Düsseldorf, nobody demanded that soccer matches be banned. With “Gen Z regelt,” however, it took no more than two days for Hesse’s Interior Minister Roman Poseck (CDU) to question the next protests. Further demonstrations have been announced for November 20. On the ARD Tagesthemen, Poseck said that it would first be necessary to see “whether these events could even take place in this form on November 20.”

He places the responsibility on the organizers: “The assembly leaders do not have these gatherings under control.” For him, the riots are a “trigger for taking a tougher line.” Now imagine an interior minister saying that about the clubs after the next Bundesliga match involving pyrotechnics and bottle throwing. The outcry would be enormous. But apparently it is acceptable to say this about young people taking to the streets for better schools and against compulsory military service.

This double standard in dealing with violence is best illustrated by Baden-Württemberg’s Interior Minister Manuel Hagel (CDU). When pyrotechnics were thrown during the cup match between Waldhof Mannheim and Kaiserslautern in August, the pitch was stormed and 35 police officers were injured, Hagel invited the clubs to a crisis meeting and praised the existing “stadium alliances.” Before the Gen Z demonstration, when nothing had even happened yet (!), the same Hagel wanted to “strike back against an allegedly ‘violent mob [... ] with the full force of the rule of law.’” So violent soccer hooligans are talked to, while young people are threatened before they have even done anything.

Racist incitement from the Union using AfD terminology

And the question of who was to blame was also quickly settled for politicians from the Union. Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU), in Bild am Sonntag, blamed “violent left-wing groups and thugs from the migrant milieu.” Poseck followed suit and went one step further: The perpetrators allegedly had “predominantly German citizenship,” but the group of perpetrators was “predominantly shaped by migration.” It is appalling how hard the Union is trying to legitimize the false, racist and anti-constitutional enemy image propagated by the far-right AfD. First, a migration background is presumed, and then immediately criminalized. That is only one step away from the fascist concept of “remigration.”

Anyone who takes to the streets for better schools and against compulsory military service is already suspected of left-wing extremism. Anyone who has lived in Germany for three generations and holds a German passport is nevertheless considered “shaped by migration.” But anyone who dreams of “remigrating” millions of people in violation of the constitution, including German citizens, is a concerned citizen whose worries must be taken seriously? The Union has lost its democratic compass.

Police: Rioters and Gen Z protests had “no connection”

There is also this: The police in Cologne, for example, explicitly said that there was “no connection” between the rioters and the demonstrators. And the idea that migration explains crime is a myth that research has long since disproved. Age, gender and social circumstances are decisive, not origin. But the Union no longer wants to hear that. Instead, it repeats the AfD’s far-right propaganda:

https://volksverpetzer.de/analyse/auslaenderkriminalitaet-geht-zurueck/

By now it should be clear that the images taken out of context, the disproportionate reaction and the enemy image have little to do with the reality on the ground. And it is clear that a playbook is simply being followed here, rather than there being any serious response to reality, because the narrative was already ready before anyone had even taken to the streets.

On October 27, CDU domestic policy politician Alexander Throm warned in the Handelsblatt that the demonstrations could be hijacked by left-wing extremists and “criminals from the migrant milieu,” and spoke of an “unholy alliance.” Dobrindt repeated exactly the same thing after the demonstrations, almost word for word. And Dobrindt even manages to praise himself at the same time: “Violent riots like those in Paris were prevented thanks to our highly committed police forces.” Convenient, because this way the equation always works out: If there are riots, the warnings were proven right. If things remain peaceful, that is only thanks to the tough police. With this narrative, you can never really lose.

Not a complete media failure with regard to the right-wing narrative

Unfortunately, images were also created that help CDU politicians spread this narrative because they can be blown out of proportion and placed in a false context. Which brings us to the role of the media.

Even beforehand, they repeatedly ensured that the protests were associated from the outset only with possible violence. Before a single person from the Gen Z movement had taken to the streets, articles were illustrated with burning street barricades. The unserious Bild naturally went one step further and gave Jochen Kopelke, the federal chairman of the German Police Union (GdP), a platform to insult the demonstrators as “riot migrants” and threaten them with “no mercy” from the outset.

Nevertheless, we did not see a media failure, as is so often the case with widespread far-right narratives. We were positively surprised in some cases by the reporting on Saturday evening and Sunday: Many media outlets, such as the hessenschau ticker, reported in a nuanced manner and emphasized that the riots appeared to have originated with groups unrelated to the demonstrations. The fact that the demonstrations were for the most part peaceful appeared in many headlines. Even the GdP managed to keep itself under control (perhaps it was also because its chairman Andreas Roßkopf was asked this time) and made it clear: “Gen Z is not responsible for the violence.”

Criticism of police violence, but also parroting right-wing narratives

Police violence, which organizers accuse officers of in many places, was also covered in the reporting. Not only by taz, but also a WDR reporter criticized the disproportionate use of a water cannon.

Of course, we are still far from living in a new media paradise. The longer the debate continues, the more violence-focused and racist narratives are reflected in the headlines and title images. In its headline, Merkur claims that “‘Gen Z’ goes wild on Halloween,” simply asserting the opposite of the police union’s official statement and not even mentioning the peaceful demonstrations.

In addition, t-online strangely uses a Pro & Contra to debate whether Dobrindt’s racism really is racism. Racist narratives are equated here with a well-founded expression of opinion. This is precisely the shift in discourse that the right wants.

To avoid falling into the trap that the Dobrindts and Merzes wanted to lure us into from the outset, it is important to keep in mind: The images of the peaceful demonstrations, the loud, creative and justifiably angry protest of the younger generations, do not become any less true, legitimate or important because of the photos of violent riots now being circulated everywhere.

We were also there: This is what we saw with our own eyes

Editors from our team also observed demonstrations in Frankfurt and Hamburg. Of course, at some point we realized that things were getting uncomfortable. Even if you are on site, it is difficult to keep track of what escalated, when, why and from whom—especially when you are alone and without a team. But what we definitely experienced were thousands of young people channeling their anger into productive directions. People who came together to exercise their democratic right to demonstrate. Demonstration organizers who repeatedly called on people not to give their critics the images they wanted.

Of course, violence is an important problem that must be addressed. We want to be able to observe the next demonstration without suddenly having firecrackers flying around us or police officers pulling out batons. But the cause of violence is not Gen Z demonstrations, let alone “migrants” as a blanket category. It has complex causes, including living conditions, social developments and socialization. Speaking of socialization: Rather than talking about “migrant violence,” it would probably make more sense to talk about male violence. It is overrepresented both in riots surrounding soccer matches and in urban rioting.

There are sensible approaches to reducing violence. But they are not as catchy as demanding bans on demonstrations. With regard to attacks on police by soccer fans, the study authors ask, for example, “whether the current police strategy of deterrence through a large deployment of personnel is effective” and recommend that police engage in more de-escalatory and mediating behavior.

Harshness and (pre-)judgment are exactly what people are protesting against!

Quite apart from the role of the police in the specific Gen Z protests, it will not help to hold the movement hostage to any acts of violence following its protests and attempt to suppress it with the greatest possible force. All this merely confirms to young people that they are not being taken seriously and will intensify their discontent. Understandably so: No one is talking about banning soccer matches because of subsequent violence, and no New Year’s Eve night, no matter how chaotic and violent, has yet led to a ban on pyrotechnics in Germany. With all due respect: Shouldn’t the fundamental right to demonstrate carry more weight than the right to blow one’s hands off at the end of the year? Here are a few more impressions from the scene:

Conclusion

Saturday saw the first major demonstrations by a movement that is only a few weeks old. It is not unusual for not everything to run smoothly, for structures to still be shaky and for nobody to know exactly what will happen. This is often how protests emerge in their initial phase, namely from “informal networks, personal contacts and digital communication structures,” as conflict researcher Julien Grimm from FU Berlin explains. It was no different for Fridays for Future at the beginning.

But what definitely does not help now is placing the entire movement and all future demonstrations under general suspicion. Protest researcher Florian Staudt calls this a “false signal.” And youth researcher Klaus Hurrelmann pointed out the actual problem even before the demonstration: “For a long time, we lamented that young people were participating too little and becoming alienated from the parties. Now they want to take to the streets, and the first reaction from politicians is rejection.”

“We have the feeling that people don’t give a damn about young people.”

That is precisely the core of the protests. Young people feel that their concerns are not being heard. An organizer from Munich put it quite clearly beforehand: “We have the feeling that people don’t give a damn about young people.” If the response is debates about bans and discussions about origin, that only confirms this feeling. The Federal Student Conference is already warning that in the end “the energy to take part in protests will be gone.” Then we would have a generation that wanted to get involved and learned that it was not worth it.

It would not be that difficult. “Their questions deserve answers—and their voice must carry weight in politics,” Burkhard Jung (SPD), president of the Association of German Cities, said before the demonstration. And the cities in particular could take the lead now. It works in soccer too: You sit down with the clubs at a table instead of banning matches. So why not do the same with the organizers, the police and the cities before November 20 – the next date on which demonstrations are scheduled to take place?