View source for Stab-in-the-back myth

{{Short description|Antisemitic conspiracy theory promulgated in Germany after World War I}}
{{Redirect2|Stab in the back|November criminals|other uses|Stab in the back (disambiguation)|and|November Criminals (disambiguation)}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2021}}
[[File:Stab-in-the-back postcard.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|An illustration from a 1919 Austrian postcard showing a [[Stereotypes of Jews|caricatured Jew]], [[Rosa Luxemburg]], stabbing a [[Imperial German Army|German Army]] soldier in the back with a dagger. The capitulation of the [[Central Powers]] was blamed on communists, [[Bolshevism|Bolsheviks]], and the [[Weimar Republic]], but in particular on Jews.]]
The '''stab-in-the-back myth''' ({{Langx|de|Dolchstoßlegende}}, {{IPA|de|ˈdɔlçʃtoːsleˌɡɛndə|pron|De-Dolchstoßlegende.ogg}}, {{literally|dagger-stab legend}}){{efn|Despite the similarity of the German word ''Legende'' and the English word "legend", "stab-in-the-back <u>myth</u>" is the [[WP:COMMONNAME|preferred term]] in English.}} was an [[Antisemitism|antisemitic]] and [[Anti-communism|anti-communist]] [[conspiracy theory]] that was widely believed and promulgated in [[Aftermath of World War I|Germany after 1918]]. It maintained that the [[Imperial German Army]] did not lose [[World War I]] on the battlefield, but was instead betrayed by certain citizens on the [[History of Germany during World War I#Home front|home front]] &ndash; especially [[History of the Jews in Germany|Jews]], revolutionary [[Socialism|socialists]] who fomented strikes and labour unrest,{{sfn|Kershaw|2016|pp=118–119}} and [[republicanism|republican]] politicians who had overthrown the [[House of Hohenzollern]] in the [[German Revolution of 1918–1919]]. Advocates of the myth denounced the German government leaders who had signed the [[Armistice of 11 November 1918]] as the "'''November criminals'''" ({{langx|de|November&shy;verbrecher|label=none}}).

When [[Adolf Hitler]] and the [[Nazi Party]] rose to power in 1933, they made the conspiracy theory an integral part of their official history of the 1920s, portraying the [[Weimar Republic]] as the work of the "November criminals" who had "stabbed the nation in the back" in order to seize power. [[Propaganda in Nazi Germany|Nazi propaganda]] depicted Weimar Germany as "a morass of corruption, degeneracy, national humiliation, ruthless persecution of the honest 'national opposition'{{snd}}fourteen years of rule by Jews, [[Marxism|Marxists]], and '[[cultural Bolshevism|cultural Bolsheviks]]', who had at last been [[Nazi Germany|swept away by the National Socialist movement under Hitler]] and the victory of the 'national revolution' of 1933".<ref name="Kolb2005">{{cite book|last=Kolb|first=Eberhard|title=The Weimar Republic|url=https://archive.org/details/weimarrepublic00kolb|url-access=limited|location=New York|publisher=Routledge|year=2005|page=[https://archive.org/details/weimarrepublic00kolb/page/n152 140] |isbn=0415344425}}</ref>

Historians inside and outside of Germany, whilst recognising that economic and morale collapse on the home front was a factor in German defeat, unanimously reject the myth. Historians and military theorists point to lack of further Imperial German Army reserves, the danger of invasion from the south, and the overwhelming of German forces on the western front by more numerous Allied forces, particularly after the [[American entry into World War I|entrance of the United States into the war]], as evidence that Germany had already lost the war militarily by late 1918.<ref name="Watson2008">{{cite book|last=Watson|first=Alexander|title=Enduring the Great War: Combat, Morale and Collapse in the German and British Armies, 1914–1918|location=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge Military Histories|year=2008|at=ch. 6|isbn=9780521881012}}</ref>{{sfn|Evans|2003|page=150}}

==Background==
{{further|War guilt question|German entry into World War I}}
{{Antisemitism sidebar|Canards}}
In the later part of World War I, the Supreme High Command (''[[Oberste Heeresleitung]]'', OHL) controlled not only the military but also a large part of the economy through the [[Auxiliary Services Act (1916)|Auxiliary Services Act]] of December 1916, which under the [[Hindenburg Programme]] aimed at a total mobilisation of the economy for war production. In order to implement the Act, however, ''[[Generalfeldmarschall]]'' [[Paul von Hindenburg]] and his Chief-of-Staff, First [[Quartermaster general|Quartermaster General]] [[Erich Ludendorff]] had to make significant concessions to labour unions and the [[Reichstag (German Empire)|Reichstag]].{{Sfn|Tipton|2003|pp=291–292}} Hindenburg and Ludendorff threatened to resign in July 1917 if the [[German Emperor|Emperor]] did not remove [[Chancellor of Germany|Chancellor]] [[Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg]]. He had lost his usefulness to them when he lost the confidence of the Reichstag after it passed the [[Reichstag Peace Resolution]] calling for a negotiated peace without annexations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lerman |first=Katharine Anne |date=28 September 2016 |editor-last=Daniel |editor-first=Ute |editor2-last=Gatrell |editor2-first=Peter |editor3-last=Janz |editor3-first=Oliver |editor4-last=Jones |editor4-first=Heather |editor5-last=Keene |editor5-first=Jennifer |editor6-last=Kramer |editor6-first=Alan |editor7-last=Nasson |editor7-first=Bill |title=Bethmann Hollweg, Theobald von |url=https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/bethmann_hollweg_theobald_von |access-date=13 January 2024 |website=1914–1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War |publisher=Freie Universität Berlin}}</ref> Bethmann Hollweg resigned and was replaced by [[Georg Michaelis]], whose appointment was supported by the OHL. After only 100 days in office, however, he became the first chancellor to be ousted by the Reichstag.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Becker |first=Bert |date=22 December 2016 |editor-last=Daniel |editor-first=Ute |editor2-last=Gatrell |editor2-first=Peter |editor3-last=Janz |editor3-first=Oliver |editor4-last=Jones |editor4-first=Heather |editor5-last=Keene |editor5-first=Jennifer |editor6-last=Kramer |editor6-first=Alan |editor7-last=Nasson |editor7-first=Bill |title=Michaelis, Georg |url=https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/michaelis_georg |access-date=13 January 2024 |website=1914–1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War |publisher=Freie Universität Berlin}}</ref>

After years of fighting and having incurred millions of casualties, the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]] and [[French Third Republic|France]] were wary about an invasion of [[German Empire|Germany]] with its unknown consequences. However the [[Allies of World War I|Allies]] had been amply resupplied by the [[United States in World War I|United States]], which had fresh armies ready for combat.<ref name="Frank Herbert Simonds 1919 p. 85">Simonds, Frank Herbert (1919) ''History of the World War, Volume 2'', New York: Doubleday. p. 85</ref> On the [[Western Front (World War I)|Western Front]], although the [[Hindenburg Line]] had been penetrated and German forces were in retreat, the Allied armies had only crossed the 1914 German frontier in a few places in Alsace-Lorraine (see below map). Meanwhile, on the [[Eastern Front (World War I)|Eastern Front]], Germany had already won its war against [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russia]], concluded with the [[Treaty of Brest-Litovsk]]. In the West, Germany had successes with the [[German spring offensive|Spring Offensive]] of 1918 but the attack had run out of momentum, the Allies had regrouped and in the [[Hundred Days Offensive]] retaken lost ground with no sign of stopping. Contributing to the ''Dolchstoßlegende'', the overall failure of the German offensive was blamed on strikes in the arms industry at a critical moment, leaving soldiers without an adequate supply of [[materiel]]. The strikes were seen as having been instigated by treasonous elements, with the Jews taking most of the blame.<ref name="Steigmann-Gall 2003 16" />

The weakness of Germany's strategic position was exacerbated by the rapid collapse of the other Central Powers in late 1918, following Allied victories on the [[Macedonian front|Macedonian]] and [[Italian front (World War I)|Italian]] fronts. [[Kingdom of Bulgaria|Bulgaria]] was the first to sign [[Armistice of Salonica|an armistice]] on 29 September 1918, at Salonica.<ref name="indiana.edu-1918">{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiana.edu/index.html|title=Indiana University Bloomington|website=Indiana University Bloomington}}</ref> On 30 October the [[Ottoman Empire]] capitulated [[Armistice of Mudros|at Mudros]].<ref name="indiana.edu-1918" /> On 3 November [[Austria-Hungary]] sent a [[White flag|flag of truce]] to the [[Royal Italian Army|Italian Army]] to ask for an armistice. The terms, arranged by telegraph with the Allied Authorities in Paris, were communicated to the Austro-Hungarian commander and accepted. The [[Armistice of Villa Giusti|armistice with Austria-Hungary]] was signed in the [[Villa Giusti]], near [[Padua]], on 3 November. Austria and Hungary signed separate treaties following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

Importantly the Austro-Hungarian capitulation left Germany's southern frontier under threat of Allied invasion from Austria. Indeed, on 4 November the Allies decided to prepare an advance across the Alps by three armies towards Munich from Austrian territory within five weeks.{{sfn|Liddell Hart|1930|pp=385–386}}

After the last German offensive on the Western Front failed in 1918, Hindenburg and Ludendorff admitted that the war effort was doomed, and they pressed Kaiser [[Wilhelm II]] for an armistice to be negotiated, and for a rapid change to a civilian government in Germany. They began to take steps to deflect the blame for losing the war from themselves and the German Army to others.{{sfn|Kershaw|2016|p=61}} Ludendorff said to his staff on 1 October:

<blockquote>I have ... asked His Majesty to include in the government those circles who are largely responsible for things having developed as they have. We will now see these gentlemen move into the ministries. Let them be the ones to sign the peace treaty that must now be negotiated. Let them eat the soup that they have cooked for us!<ref name="Siedler Verlag--Verlagsgruppe 2011">{{Cite web |title=Erich Ludendorff Admits Defeat: Diary Entry by Albrecht von Thaer (October 1, 1918) |url=https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=814&language=english |access-date=25 August 2023 |website=German History in Documents and Images}}</ref>{{efn|Original: {{lang|de|Ich habe aber S.M. gebeten, jetzt auch diejenigen Kreise an die Regierung zu bringen, denen wir es in der Hauptsache zu danken haben, daß wir so weit gekommen sind. Wir werden also diese Herren jetzt in die Ministerien einziehen sehen. Die sollen nun den Frieden schließen, der jetzt geschlossen werden muß. Sie sollen die Suppe jetzt essen, die sie uns eingebrockt haben!}}{{hairspace}}<ref>{{cite web |title=Erich Ludendorff gesteht die Niederlage ein: aus den Tagebuchnotizen von Albrecht von Thaer (1 Oktober 1918) |access-date=25 August 2023 |website=[[:de:Deutsche Geschichte in Dokumenten und Bildern]] |url=https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=814&language=german |language=de}}</ref>}}</blockquote>

In this way, Ludendorff was setting up the republican politicians – many of them Socialists – who would be brought into the government, and would become the parties that negotiated the [[Armistice of 11 November 1918|armistice with the Allies]], as the scapegoats to take the blame for losing the war, instead of himself and Hindenburg.{{sfn|Kershaw|2016|p=61}} Normally, during wartime an armistice is negotiated between the military commanders of the hostile forces, but Hindenburg and Ludendorff had instead handed this task to the new civilian government.{{sfn|Hett|2018|pages=21–22}} The attitude of the military was "[T]he parties of the left have to take on the odium of this peace. The storm of anger will then turn against them," after which the military could step in again to ensure that things would once again be run "in the old way".{{sfn|Kershaw|2016|p=86}}

On 5 October, the German Chancellor, [[Prince Maximilian of Baden]], contacted [[President of the United States|U.S. President]] [[Presidency of Woodrow Wilson|Woodrow Wilson]], indicating that Germany was willing to accept his [[Fourteen Points]] as a basis for discussions. Wilson's response insisted that Germany institute parliamentary democracy, give up the territory it had gained to that point in the war, and significantly disarm, including giving up the German [[High Seas Fleet]].{{sfn|Kershaw|2016|pp=85–86}} On 26 October, Ludendorff was dismissed from his post by the Emperor and replaced by Lieutenant General [[Wilhelm Groener]], who started to prepare the withdrawal and demobilisation of the army.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2014-07-11|title=Biographie: Wilhelm Groener, 1867–1939|url=http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/biografien/GroenerWilhelm/index.html|access-date=2021-12-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140711071623/http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/biografien/GroenerWilhelm/index.html|archive-date=11 July 2014}}</ref>

On 11 November 1918, the representatives of the newly formed Weimar Republic – created after the Revolution of 1918–1919 forced the abdication of the Kaiser – signed the armistice that ended hostilities. The military commanders had arranged it so that they would not be blamed for suing for peace, but the republican politicians associated with the armistice would:{{sfn|Hett|2018|pages=21–22}} the signature on the armistice document was of [[Matthias Erzberger]], who was later murdered for his alleged treason. In his autobiography, Ludendorff's successor Groener stated, "It suited me just fine when the army and the Supreme Command remained as guiltless as possible in these wretched truce negotiations, from which nothing good could be expected".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Schulze |first=Hagen |title=Weimar. Deutschland 1917–1933 |publisher=Siedler |year=1994 |isbn=978-3-886-80050-6 |location=Berlin |page=149 |language=de}}</ref>

Given that the heavily censored German press had carried nothing but news of victories throughout the war, and that Germany itself was unoccupied while occupying a great deal of foreign territory, it was no wonder that the German public was mystified by the request for an armistice, especially as they did not know that their military leaders had asked for it,{{sfn|Hett|2018|pages=21–22}} nor did they know that the German Army had been in full retreat after their last offensive had failed.{{sfn|Kershaw|2016|p=61}}

Thus the conditions were set for the "stab-in-the-back myth", in which Hindenburg and Ludendorff were held to be blameless, the German Army was seen as undefeated on the battlefield, and the republican politicians – especially the Socialists – were accused of betraying Germany. Further blame was laid at their feet after they signed the [[Treaty of Versailles]] in 1919, which led to territorial losses and serious financial pain for the shaky new republic, including a crippling schedule of reparation payments.

Conservatives, nationalists, and ex-military leaders began to speak critically about the peace and Weimar politicians, socialists, [[Communism|communists]], and Jews. Even [[Catholic Church in Germany|Catholics]] were viewed with suspicion by some due to supposed fealty to the [[Pope]] and their presumed lack of national loyalty and patriotism. It was claimed that these groups had not sufficiently supported the war and had played a role in selling out Germany to its enemies. These ''November Criminals'', or those who seemed to benefit from the newly formed Weimar Republic, were seen to have "stabbed them in the back" on the home front, by either criticising [[German nationalism]], instigating unrest and mounting strikes in the critical military industries, or by profiteering. These actions were believed to have deprived Germany of almost certain victory at the eleventh hour.

==Assessments of Germany's situation in late 1918==
[[File:Western front 1918 allied.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|alt=|Map showing the Western Front as it stood on 11 November 1918. The German frontier of 1914 had been crossed in the vicinities of [[Mulhouse]], [[Château-Salins]], and [[Marieulles]] in Alsace-Lorraine.]]

===Contemporary===
When consulted on terms for an armistice in October 1918, [[Douglas Haig]], commander of the British and Commonwealth forces on the western front, stated that "Germany is not broken in the military sense. During the last weeks her forces have withdrawn fighting very bravely and in excellent order". [[Ferdinand Foch]], Supreme Allied Commander, agreed with this assessment, stating that "the German army could undoubtedly take up a new position, and we could not prevent it".{{sfn|Liddell Hart|1930|pp=383–384}} When asked about how long he believed it would take for German forces to be pushed across the Rhine, Foch responded "Maybe three, maybe four or five months, who knows?".{{sfn|Liddell Hart|1930|pp=385–386}}

In private correspondence Haig was more sanguine. In a mid-October letter to his wife he stated that "I think we have their army beaten now".<ref name="Beach 2013" />{{rp|316}} Haig noted in his diary for 11 November 1918 that the German army was in "very bad" condition due to insubordination and indiscipline in the ranks.<ref name="Beach 2013" />{{rp|318}}

British army intelligence in October 1918 assessed the German reserves as being very limited, with only 20 divisions for the whole western front of which only five were rated as "fresh". However, they also highlighted that the German Class of 1920 (i.e., the class of young men due to be conscripted in 1920 under normal circumstances, but called up early) was being held back as an additional reserve and would be absorbed into German divisions in the winter of 1918 if the war continued.<ref name="Beach 2013">{{cite book |last1=Beach |first1=Jim |title=Haig's Intelligence: GHQ and the German Army, 1916–1918 |date= 2013 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781139600521 |pages=303–319 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/haigs-intelligence/C8E7355FE420251BF9CB60AAE202A893 |access-date=4 March 2024}}</ref>{{rp|317–318}} Aerial reconnaissance also highlighted the lack of any prepared fortified positions beyond the Hindenburg line.<ref name="Beach 2013" />{{rp|316}} A report from the retired German general [[Max Montgelas|Montgelas]], who had previously contacted British intelligence to discuss peace overtures, stated that "The military situation is desperate, if not hopeless, but it is nothing compared to the interior condition due to the rapid spread of Bolshevism".<ref name="Beach 2013" />{{rp|318}}

===Post-war===
Writing in 1930, the British military theorist [[B. H. Liddell Hart|Basil Liddell Hart]] wrote that:
<blockquote>The German acceptance of these severe terms [i.e., the Armistice terms] was hastened less by the existing situation on the western front than by the collapse of the "home front," coupled to exposure to a new thrust in the rear through Austria.{{sfn|Liddell Hart|1930|p=385}}</blockquote> 
Analysing the role that developments on the western front had played in the German decision to capitulate, Hart emphasised particularly the importance of new military threats to Germany that they were ill-equipped to meet, alongside developments within Germany, stating that:
<blockquote>More truly significant was the decision on November 4, after Austria’s surrender, to prepare a concentric advance on Munich by three Allied armies, which would be assembled on the Austro-German frontier within five weeks. In addition [[Hugh Trenchard, 1st Viscount Trenchard|Trenchard]]’s [[Independent Air Force]] was about to bomb Berlin: on a scale hitherto unattempted in air warfare. And the number of American troops in Europe had now risen to 2,085,000, and the number of divisions to forty-two, of which thirty-two were ready for battle.{{sfn|Liddell Hart|1930|p=385}}</blockquote>

German historian [[Imanuel Geiss]] also emphasised the importance of the Austro-Hungarian collapse, alongside internal factors affecting Germany, in the final decision by Germany to make peace:
<blockquote>Whatever doubts may have lingered in German minds about the necessity of laying down arms they were definitely destroyed by events inside and outside Germany. On 27th October Emperor Karl threw up the sponge [...] Germany lay practically open to invasion through Bohemia and Tyrol into Silesia, Saxony, and Bavaria. To wage war on foreign soil was one thing, to have the destructions of modern warfare on German soil was another.<ref name="Geiss 266">{{cite book |last1=Geiss |first1=Immanuel |author1-link=Imanuel Geiss |editor1-last=Taylor |editor1-first=AJP |editor1-link=AJP Taylor |title=History of World War 1 |date=1974 |publisher=Octopus Books |isbn=0706403983 |page=266}}</ref></blockquote>

Geiss further linked this threat to Germany's borders with the fact that the German revolutionary movement emerged first in the lands that were most threatened by the new invasion threat{{snd}}Bavaria and Saxony. In Geiss's account, this led to the two competing movements for peace{{snd}}one "from above" of establishment figures that wished to use the peace to preserve the status quo, and one "from below" that wished to use the peace to establish a socialist, democratic state.<ref name="Geiss 266" />

Naval historian and first world war Royal Navy veteran Captain [[Stephen Roskill|S.W. Roskill]] assessed the situation at sea as follows:
<blockquote>There is no doubt at all that in 1918 Allied anti-submarine forces inflicted a heavy defeat on the U-boats ... the so-called 'stab in the back' by the civil population's collapse is a fiction of German militaristic imagination<ref name="Roskill 229">{{cite book |last1=Roskill |first1=S.W. |author1-link=Stephen Roskill |editor1-last=Taylor |editor1-first=AJP |editor1-link=AJP Taylor |title=History of World War 1 |date=1974 |publisher=Octopus Books |isbn=0706403983 |page=229}}</ref></blockquote>
Although Roskill also balanced this by saying that what he characterised as "the triumph of unarmed forces" (i.e., pressure from the German civilian population for peace under the influence of the Allied blockade) was a factor in Allied victory alongside that of armed forces including naval, land, and air forces.<ref name="Roskill 229" />

==Development of the myth==
{{multiple image
| align             = left
| direction         = horizontal
| image1            = Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2005-0828-525 Erich Ludendorff (cropped)(b).jpg
| width1            = 200
| caption1          = First Quartermaster General [[Erich Ludendorff]]
| image2            = Bundesarchiv Bild 183-C06886, Paul v. Hindenburg.jpg
| width2            = 195
| caption2          = Field Marshal [[Paul von Hindenburg]]
| footer            = Ludendorff and Hindenburg, supreme commanders of the German Army, were primarily responsible for the creation and popularization of the myth that the army was not defeated on the battlefield, but was betrayed on the German home front.{{sfn|Hett|2018|pages=29–33}}
| footer-align      = centerhett
| total_width       = 
| alt1              = 
}}

According to historian [[Richard Steigmann-Gall]], the stab-in-the-back concept can be traced back to a sermon preached on 3 February 1918, by Protestant Court Chaplain [[Bruno Doehring]], nine months before the war had ended.<ref name="Steigmann-Gall 2003 16">{{cite book |author-link=Richard Steigmann-Gall|last=Steigmann-Gall|first=Richard|title=The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945|location=New York|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2003|page=16|isbn=0521823714}}</ref> German scholar Boris Barth, in contrast to Steigmann-Gall, implies that Doehring did not actually use the term, but spoke only of 'betrayal'. Barth traces the first documented use to a centrist political meeting in the [[Munich]] [[Löwenbräukeller]] on 2 November 1918, in which [[:de:Ernst Müller-Meiningen|Ernst Müller-Meiningen]], a member of the [[Progressive People's Party (Germany)|Progressive People's Party]] in the ''[[Reichstag (German Empire)|Reichstag]]'', used the term to exhort his listeners to hold out after [[Kurt Eisner]] of the radical left [[Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany|Independent Social Democratic Party]] had predicted an imminent revolution:<ref>{{Cite book |last=Barth |first=Boris |title=Dolchstoßlegenden und politische Desintegration: Das Trauma der deutschen Niederlage im Ersten Weltkrieg 1914–1933 |publisher=Droste |year=2003 |isbn=3770016157 |location=Düsseldorf |pages=148, 167, 340 f |language=de |trans-title=Stab-in-the-back Myths and Political Disintegration: The Trauma of the German Defeat in the First World War 1914–1933}}</ref>

<blockquote>As long as the front holds, we damned well have the duty to hold out in the homeland. We would have to be ashamed of ourselves in front of our children and grandchildren if we attacked the battle front from the rear and gave it a dagger-stab (''wenn wir der Front in den Rücken fielen und ihr den Dolchstoß versetzten'').<ref>{{Cite book |last=Müller (Meiningen) |first=Ernst |title=Aus Bayerns schwersten Tagen |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |year=1924 |location=Berlin and Leipzig |page=27 |language=de |trans-title=From Bavaria's Most Difficult Days}}</ref></blockquote>

However, the widespread dissemination and acceptance of the "stab-in-the-back" myth came about through its use by Germany's highest military echelon. In Spring 1919, [[Max Bauer]] – an army colonel who had been the primary adviser to Ludendorff on politics and economics – published ''Could We Have Avoided, Won, or Broken Off the War?'', in which he wrote that "[The war] was lost only and exclusively through the failure of the homeland."{{sfn|Hett|2018|pages=29–33}} The birth of the specific term "stab-in-the-back" itself can possibly be dated to the autumn of 1919, when Ludendorff was dining with the head of the British Military Mission in Berlin, British general Sir [[Neill Malcolm]]. Malcolm asked Ludendorff why he thought Germany lost the war. Ludendorff replied with his list of excuses, including that the home front failed the army.

[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-00015, Friedrich Ebert (loose crop).jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|[[Friedrich Ebert]] contributed to the myth when he told returning veterans that "No enemy has vanquished you."]]

<blockquote>Malcolm asked him: "Do you mean, General, that you were stabbed in the back?" Ludendorff's eyes lit up and he leapt upon the phrase like a dog on a bone. "Stabbed in the back?" he repeated. "Yes, that's it, exactly, we were stabbed in the back". And thus was born a legend which has never entirely perished.<ref name="JWB1938">{{cite journal|last=Wheeler-Bennett|first=John W.|authorlink=John Wheeler-Bennett|title=Ludendorff: The Soldier and the Politician|journal=Virginia Quarterly Review|volume=14|issue=2|pages=187–202|year=1938|url=http://www.vqronline.org/articles/1938/spring/wheelerbennett-ludendorff-soldier/}}</ref></blockquote>

The phrase was to Ludendorff's liking, and he let it be known among the general staff that this was the "official" version, which led to it being spread throughout German society. It was picked up by right-wing political factions, and was even used by Kaiser Wilhelm II in the memoirs he wrote in the 1920s.{{sfn|Evans|2003|page=61}} Right-wing groups used it as a form of attack against the early Weimar Republic government, led by the [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|Social Democratic Party]] (SPD), which had come to power with the abdication of the Kaiser. However, even the SPD had a part in furthering the myth when ''[[President of Germany (1919–1945)|Reichspräsident]]'' [[Friedrich Ebert]], the party leader, told troops returning to Berlin on 10 November 1918 that "No enemy has vanquished you," (''kein Feind hat euch überwunden!''){{sfn|Evans|2003|page=61}} and "they returned undefeated from the battlefield" (''sie sind vom Schlachtfeld unbesiegt zurückgekehrt''). The latter quote was shortened to ''im Felde unbesiegt'' (undefeated on the battlefield) as a semi-official slogan of the ''[[Reichswehr]]''. Ebert had meant these sayings as a tribute to the German soldier, but it only contributed to the prevailing feeling.

Further "proof" of the myth's validity was found in British general [[Frederick Maurice (military historian)|Frederick Barton Maurice]]'s book ''The Last Four Months'', published in 1919. German reviews of the book misrepresented it as proving that the German Army had been betrayed on the home front by being "dagger-stabbed from behind by the civilian populace" (''von der Zivilbevölkerung von hinten erdolcht''), an interpretation that Maurice disavowed in the German press, to no effect. According to [[William L. Shirer]], Ludendorff used the reviews of the book to convince Hindenburg about the validity of the myth.<ref name="William L. Shirer 1960 p. 31">[[William L. Shirer|Shirer, William L.]], ''[[The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich]]'', Simon and Schuster (1960) p.31fn</ref>

On 18 November 1919, Ludendorff and Hindenburg appeared before the [[Reichstag inquiry into guilt for World War I|Committee of Inquiry into Guilt for World War I]] ({{Lang|de|Untersuchungsausschuss für Schuldfragen des Weltkrieges}}) of the newly elected [[Weimar National Assembly]], which was investigating the causes of the war and Germany's defeat. The two generals appeared in civilian clothing, explaining publicly that to wear their uniforms would show too much respect to the commission. Hindenburg refused to answer questions from the chairman, and instead read a statement that had been written by Ludendorff. In his testimony he cited what Maurice was purported to have written, which provided his testimony's most memorable part.{{sfn|Hett|2018|pages=29–33}} Hindenburg declared at the end of his – or Ludendorff's – speech: "As an English general has very truly said, the German Army was 'stabbed in the back'".<ref name="William L. Shirer 1960 p. 31" />

Furthering, the specifics of the stab-in-the-back myth are mentioned briefly by Kaiser Wilhelm II in his memoir:<blockquote>I immediately summoned Field Marshal von Hindenburg and the Quartermaster General, General Groener. General Groener again announced that the army could fight no longer and wished rest above all else, and that, therefore, any sort of armistice must be unconditionally accepted; that the armistice must be concluded as soon as possible, since the army had supplies for only six to eight days more and was cut off from all further supplies by the rebels, who had occupied all the supply storehouses and Rhine bridges; that, for some unexplained reason, the armistice commission sent to France–consisting of Erzberger, [[Alfred von Oberndorff|Ambassador Count Oberndorff]], and General von Winterfeldt–which had crossed the French lines two evenings before, had sent no report as to the nature of the conditions.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Wilhelm |first=Kaiser |title=The Kaiser's Memoirs |publisher=Good Press |year=1992 |pages=285–286}}</ref></blockquote>Hindenburg, Chief of the [[German General Staff]] at the time of the Ludendorff Offensive, also mentioned this event in a statement explaining the Kaiser's abdication:<blockquote>The conclusion of the armistice was directly impending. At moment of the highest military tension revolution broke out in Germany, the insurgents seized the Rhine bridges, important arsenals, and traffic centres in the rear of the army, thereby endangering the supply of ammunition and provisions, while the supplies in the hands of the troops were only enough to last for a few days. The troops on the lines of communication and the reserves disbanded themselves, and unfavourable reports arrived concerning the reliability of the field army proper.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hindenburg |first=Paul |title=Records of the Great Wars |publisher=Charles F. Horne |year=1993 |volume=VI |location=National Alumni}}</ref></blockquote>It was particularly this testimony of Hindenburg that led to the widespread acceptance of the ''Dolchstoßlegende'' in post-World War I Germany.
==Antisemitic aspects==
[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1969-067-10, Alfred Rosenberg.jpg |thumb|upright=0.8|left|Nazi theorist [[Alfred Rosenberg]] was one of many on the far-right who spread the stab-in-the-back myth.]]
The antisemitic instincts of the German Army were revealed well before the stab-in-the-back myth became the military's excuse for losing the war. In October 1916, in the middle of the war, the army ordered a [[Judenzählung|Jewish census]] of the troops, with the intent to show that Jews were under-represented in the ''Heer'' (army), and that they were over-represented in non-fighting positions. Instead, the census showed just the opposite, that Jews were over-represented both in the army as a whole and in fighting positions at the front. The Imperial German Army then suppressed the results of the census.{{sfn|Evans|2003|page=150}}

Charges of a Jewish conspiratorial element in Germany's defeat drew heavily upon figures such as [[Kurt Eisner]], a Berlin-born German Jew who lived in Munich. He had written about the illegal nature of the war from 1916 onward, and he also had a large hand in the [[People's State of Bavaria|Munich revolution]] until he was assassinated in February 1919. The Weimar Republic under Friedrich Ebert violently suppressed workers' uprisings with the help of [[Gustav Noske]] and ''Reichswehr'' general Wilhelm Groener, and tolerated the [[paramilitary]] ''[[Freikorps]]'' forming all across Germany. In spite of such tolerance, the Republic's legitimacy was constantly attacked with claims such as the stab-in-the-back. Many of its representatives such as Matthias Erzberger and [[Walther Rathenau]] were assassinated, and the leaders were branded as "criminals" and Jews by the right-wing press dominated by [[Alfred Hugenberg]].

Anti-Jewish sentiment was intensified by the [[Bavarian Soviet Republic]] (6 April – 3 May 1919), a [[Communist state|communist government]] which briefly ruled the city of Munich before being crushed by the ''Freikorps''. Many of the Bavarian Soviet Republic's leaders were Jewish, allowing antisemitic propagandists to connect Jews with communism, and thus treason.{{fact|date=December 2024}}

[[File:Stab-in-the-back cartoon 1924.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|1924 right-wing German political cartoon showing [[Philipp Scheidemann]], the [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|German Social Democratic]] politician who proclaimed the Weimar Republic and was its second chancellor, and [[Matthias Erzberger]], an anti-war politician from the [[Centre Party (Germany)|Centre Party]], who ended World War I by signing the [[Armistice of 11 November 1918|armistice]] with the Allied Powers, as stabbing the German Army in the back]]In 1919, ''[[Deutschvölkischer Schutz- und Trutzbund|Deutschvölkischer Schutz und Trutzbund]]'' (German Nationalist Protection and Defiance Federation) leader [[Alfred Roth (politician)|Alfred Roth]], writing under the pseudonym "Otto Arnim", published the book ''The Jew in the Army'' which he said was based on evidence gathered during his participation on the ''Judenzählung'', a military census which had in fact shown that German Jews had served in the front lines proportionately to their numbers. Roth's work claimed that most Jews involved in the war were only taking part as profiteers and spies, while he also blamed Jewish officers for fostering a defeatist mentality which impacted negatively on their soldiers. As such, the book offered one of the earliest published versions of the stab-in-the-back legend.<ref name="Levy2005">{{cite book|last=Levy|first=Richard S.|title=Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution|url=https://archive.org/details/antisemitismhist00levy_141|url-access=limited|year=2005|location=Santa Barbara|publisher=ABC-CLIO|pages=623–624|isbn=1851094393}}</ref>

[[File:1920 poster 12000 Jewish soldiers KIA for the fatherland.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|''"12,000 Jewish soldiers died on the field of honor for the fatherland."'' A leaflet published in 1920 by German Jewish veterans in response to accusations of the lack of patriotism]]
A version of the stab-in-the-back myth was publicised in 1922 by the anti-Semitic Nazi theorist [[Alfred Rosenberg]] in his primary [[racial policy of Nazi Germany|contribution to Nazi theory]] on [[Zionism]], ''Der Staatsfeindliche Zionismus'' (Zionism, the Enemy of the State). Rosenberg accused German Zionists of working for a German defeat and supporting Britain and the implementation of the [[Balfour Declaration]].{{efn|This is described similarly by [[William Helmreich]] and Francis Nicosia. Helmreich noted that: "''Der staatsfeindliche Zionismus'', published in 1922, was Rosenberg's major contribution to the National Socialist position on Zionism. It represented in part an elaboration on ideas already expressed in articles in the ''Volkischer Beobachter'' and in other published works, notably ''Die Spur''. The title provides the gist of a thesis that Rosenberg sought to convey to his readers: 'The Zionist organization in Germany is nothing more than an organization that pursues a legalized undermining of the German state.' He accused German Zionists of having betrayed Germany during the war by supporting Britain's Balfour Declaration and pro-Zionist policies and charged that they had actively worked for a German defeat and the Versailles settlement to obtain a Jewish National Home in Palestine. He went on to assert that the interests of Zionism were first and foremost those of world Jewry, and by implication the international Jewish conspiracy."{{sfn|Helmreich|1985|p=24}} Nicosia: "Rosenberg argues that the Jews had planned the Great War in order to secure a state in Palestine. In other words, he suggested that they generated violence and war among the gentiles in order to secure their own, exclusively Jewish, interests. In fact, the title of one of those works, ''Der Staatsfeindliche Zionismus'' ("Zionism, the Enemy of the State"), published in 1922, conveys the gist of Rosenberg's approach to the question, an approach that Hitler had been taking in some of his speeches since 1920. Rosenberg writes: 'The Zionist Organization in Germany is nothing more than an Organization that perpetrates the legal subversion of the German state.' He further accuses the Zionists of betraying Germany during World War I by supporting Great Britain and its Balfour Declaration, working for a German defeat and the implementation of the Balfour Declaration, supporting the Versailles settlement, and embracing the Jewish National Home in postwar, British-controlled Palestine."{{sfn|Nicosia|2008|p=67}}}}

==Aftermath==
The ''Dolchstoß'' was a central image in propaganda produced by the many right-wing and traditionally conservative political parties that sprang up in the early days of the Weimar Republic, including Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party. For Hitler himself, this explanatory model for World War I was of crucial personal importance.<ref name="brendon8">{{cite book |author-link=Piers Brendon |last=Brendon |first=Piers |title=The Dark Valley: A Panorama of the 1930s |page=[https://archive.org/details/darkvalleypanora00bren/page/8 8] |isbn=0-375-40881-9 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/darkvalleypanora00bren/page/8 |year=2000 |publisher=Knopf }}</ref> He had learned of Germany's defeat while being treated for temporary blindness following a gas attack on the front.<ref name="brendon8" /> In ''[[Mein Kampf]]'', he described a vision at this time which drove him to enter politics. Throughout his career, he railed against the "November criminals" of 1918, who had stabbed the German Army in the back.{{fact|date=December 2024}}

German historian [[Friedrich Meinecke]] attempted to trace the roots of the expression "stab-in-the-back" in a 11 June 1922 article in the Viennese newspaper ''[[Neue Freie Presse]]''.{{citation needed|reason=Seems more likely he was talking about the German word "Dolchstoß"|date=March 2022}} In the 1924 national election, the Munich cultural journal ''[[Süddeutsche Monatshefte]]'' published a series of articles blaming the SPD and trade unions for Germany's defeat in World War I, which came out during the trial of Hitler and Ludendorff for high treason following the [[Beer Hall Putsch]] in 1923. The editor of an SPD newspaper sued the journal for [[defamation]], giving rise to what is known as the ''Munich Dolchstoßprozess'' from 19 October to 20 November 1925. Many prominent figures testified in that trial, including members of the parliamentary committee investigating the reasons for the defeat, so some of its results were made public long before the publication of the committee report in 1928.
{{Quote box
 | quote = "And which was more certain dishonor for our people: the occupation of German areas by the enemy, or the cowardice with which our bourgeoisie surrendered the German Reich to an organization of pimps, pickpockets, deserters, black marketeers and hack journalists? Let not the gentlemen prattle now about German honor, as long as they bow under the rule of dishonor....Whoever wants to act in the name of German honor today must first launch a merciless war against the infernal defilers of German honor. They are the not the enemies of yore, but they are the representatives of the November crime. That collection of Marxist, democratic-pacifistic, destructive traitors of our country who pushed our people into its present state of powerlessness."
 | source = Adolf Hitler, [[Hitlers Zweites Buch|''Zweites Buch'']], Chapter 8: "Military Power and Fallacy of Border Restoration as Goal"<ref>{{cite book |last=Hitler |first=Adolf |title=Hitler's Secret Book |translator=[[Salvator Attanasio]] |publisher=[[Grove Press]] |location=New York |year=1961 |orig-year=1928 |pages=89-90}}</ref> 
 | align = right
 | width = 40%
 | bgcolor = #f9f9f9
}}
===World War II===
[[File:Jože Beranek - V usodnem trenutku nož v hrbet.jpeg|thumb|1944 poster from [[World War II in the Slovene Lands|German-ruled Slovenia]]: the legend reads "''A knife in the back at the fatal moment!''". It depicts [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British Prime Minister]] [[Winston Churchill]] stabbing Europa in the back while Europa fights the [[Red Army]]; a stereotyped Jew watches on with glee.]]
The Allied policy of [[unconditional surrender]] was devised in 1943 in part to avoid a repetition of the stab-in-the-back myth. According to historian [[John Wheeler-Bennett]], speaking from the British perspective,<blockquote>It was necessary for the Nazi régime and/or the German Generals to surrender unconditionally in order to bring home to the German people that they had lost the War by themselves; so that their defeat should not be attributed to a "stab in the back".<ref name="JWB1954">{{cite book|last=Wheeler-Bennett|first=John W.|title=The Nemesis of Power: The German Army in Politics, 1918–1945|url=https://archive.org/details/nemesisofpowerge0000whee |url-access=registration|year=1954|location=London|publisher=Macmillan|page=[https://archive.org/details/nemesisofpowerge0000whee/page/559 559]}}</ref></blockquote>

==Wagnerian allusions==
[[File:Siegfrieds Tod.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|[[Hagen (legend)|Hagen]] takes aim at [[Sigurd|Siegfried]]'s back with a spear in an 1847 painting by [[Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld]] of a scene from the [[Epic poetry|epic poem]] ''[[Nibelungenlied]]'' ("Song of the Nibelungs") – which was the basis for [[Richard Wagner]]'s opera ''[[Götterdämmerung]]''. ]]
To some Germans, the idea of a "stab in the back" was evocative of [[Richard Wagner]]'s 1876 opera ''[[Götterdämmerung]]'', in which [[Hagen (legend)|Hagen]] murders his enemy [[Sigurd|Siegfried]] – the [[Germanic heroic legend|hero]] of the story – with a spear in his back.<ref>{{cite book |last=Roberts |first=J. M.|authorlink=John Roberts (historian) |title=Twentieth Century: The History of the World, 1901 to the Present|year=1999|isbn=0-713-99257-3 |page=[https://archive.org/details/twentiethcentury0000robe_j2o2/page/289 289 n.12]|publisher=Allen Lane/The Penguin Press |location=London |url=https://archive.org/details/twentiethcentury0000robe_j2o2 |url-access=registration}}</ref><ref>Vascik, George S. and Sadler, Mark R. eds. (2016) ''The Stab-in-the-Back Myth and the Fall of the Weimar Republic: A History in Documents and Visual Sources'' Bloomsbury Academic. [https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/the-stab-in-the-back-myth-and-the-fall-of-the-weimar-republic-a-history-in-documents-and-visual-sources/introduction p.1] {{isbn|9781474227797}}</ref> In Hindenburg's memoirs, he compared the collapse of the German Army to Siegfried's death.<ref name="dlt">{{Cite web |last=Kimmel |first=Elke |date=2021-10-06 |title=Der Hindenburgmythos und die Dolchstoßlegende |url=https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/100-jahre-politischer-mord-in-deutschland-der-100.html |access-date=2022-03-02 |website=Deutschlandfunk Kultur |language=de}}</ref>

==Psychology of belief==
Historian Richard McMasters Hunt argues in a 1958 article that the myth was an irrational belief which commanded the force of irrefutable emotional convictions for millions of Germans. He suggests that behind these myths was a sense of communal shame, not for causing the war, but for losing it. Hunt argues that it was not the guilt of wickedness, but the shame of weakness that seized Germany's [[national psychology]], and "served as a solvent of the Weimar democracy and also as an ideological cement of Hitler's dictatorship".<ref name=Hunt1958>{{cite journal |last=Hunt|first=Richard M.|title=Myths, Guilt, and Shame in Pre-Nazi Germany|journal=Virginia Quarterly Review|year=1958|volume=34 |issue=3 |pages=355–71|quote=In the last analysis, the deep emotion that gave rise to these myths in pre-Nazi Germany was essentially an overwhelming sense of communal shame. It was not at all a shame related to the responsibility for {{em|causing}} the war. Much more, it was a shame related to the responsibility for {{em|losing}} the war.|id={{ProQuest|1291786296}}}}</ref>

==Equivalents in other countries==
{{see also|Lost Cause of the Confederacy|Vietnam stab-in-the-back myth|Armenian genocide denial}}

Parallel interpretations of [[national trauma]] after military defeat appear in other countries.<ref name=Macleod2008>{{cite book|editor-first=Jenny|editor-last=Macleod|date=2008|title=Defeat and Memory: Cultural Histories of Military Defeat since 1815 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|location=London, England |isbn=9780230517400}}</ref> For example, it was applied to the United States' involvement in the [[Vietnam War]]<ref name=Kimball1988>{{cite journal|first=Jeffrey P.|last=Kimball |date=1988|title=The Stab-in-the-back Legend and the Vietnam War |journal=[[Armed Forces & Society]]|publisher=SAGE Publications |location=Newbury Park, California|volume=14|issue=3|pages=433–58 |doi=10.1177/0095327X8801400306|s2cid=145066387}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Arnold|last1=Ages|date=1973|title=The Diaspora Dimension |chapter=The American Diaspora: Is it Different?|publisher=Springer Netherlands |location=Dordrecht|isbn=978-94-010-2456-3|pages=169–172 |doi=10.1007/978-94-010-2456-3_11}}</ref> and in the mythology of the [[Lost Cause of the Confederacy]].<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Ryan K. |last1=McNutt|title='What's left of the flag': the Confederate and Jacobite 'lost cause' myths, and the construction of mythic identities through conflict commemoration|journal=Journal of Conflict Archaeology|date=2 September 2017 |issn=1574-0773|pages=142–162 |volume=12|issue=3 |doi=10.1080/15740773.2017.1480419|s2cid=165855051}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first1=Neil|last1=Levi|first2=Michael |last2=Rothberg|title=Memory studies in a moment of danger: Fascism, postfascism, and the contemporary political imaginary |journal=Memory Studies|date=7 July 2018 |issn=1750-6980 |pages=355–367|volume=11|issue=3|doi=10.1177/1750698018771868 |s2cid=150272869}}</ref> In [[Turkey]], the Ottoman Empire's [[successor state]], similar narratives accusing [[Christianity in the Ottoman Empire|Ottoman Christians]] of conspiring against the empire with the United Kingdom and Russia are promoted to justify the [[Armenian genocide|Armenian]], [[Greek genocide|Greek]], and [[Sayfo|Assyrian genocides]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Travis |first1=Hannibal |title=Missions, Minorities, and the Motherland: Xenophobic Narratives of an Ottoman Christian “Stab in the Back” |journal=[[ International Journal of Middle East Studies]] |date=August 2022 |volume=54 |issue=3 |page=559-565 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-middle-east-studies/article/missions-minorities-and-the-motherland-xenophobic-narratives-of-an-ottoman-christian-stab-in-the-back/09ADB28D8DECE21F5212B6D85D76AE0A |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |issn=0020-7438}}</ref>

==See also==
{{div col|colwidth=22em}}
* [[Austria victim theory]]
* [[Causes of World War II]]
* [[Centre for the Study of the Causes of the War]]
* [[Genocide justification]]
* [[Jewish war conspiracy theory]]
* [[More German than the Germans]], a contrasting trope about German Jewry
* [[Secondary antisemitism]]
* [[Spa Conferences (First World War)]]
* [[Spa Conference (29 September 1918)]]{{div col end}}

==References==
'''Informational notes'''
{{notelist}}

'''Citations'''
{{Reflist}}

'''Bibliography'''
* {{cite book | last = Evans | first = Richard J.| author-link = Richard J. Evans | date = 2003 | title = [[The Coming of the Third Reich]] | location = New York | publisher = Penguin | isbn = 0-14-303469-3 }}
* {{cite book |last=Helmreich |first=William |title=The Third Reich and the Palestine Question |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RywrDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA296 |year=1985 |publisher=University of Texas Press |isbn=978-1-351-47272-2}}
* {{cite book | last = Hett | first = Benjamin Carter| year = 2018 | title = The Death of Democracy | location = New York | publisher = St. Martin's | isbn = 978-1-250-21086-9 }}
* {{cite book |last=Kershaw |first=Ian |year=2016 |title=To Hell and Back: Europe 1914–1949 |location=New York |publisher=Penguin Books |isbn=978-0-14-310992-1}}
* {{cite book |last1=Liddell Hart |first1=B.H. |author1-link=B.H. Liddell Hart |title=The Real War |date=1930 |publisher=Little, Brown, and Company |isbn=978-0-316-52505-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/realwar191419180000unse |access-date=28 February 2024}} pp. [https://archive.org/details/realwar191419180000unse/page/383/mode/1up 383], [https://archive.org/details/realwar191419180000unse/page/384/mode/1up 384], [https://archive.org/details/realwar191419180000unse/page/385/mode/1up 385], [https://archive.org/details/realwar191419180000unse/page/386/mode/1up 386]
* {{cite book |last=Nicosia |first=Francis R. |author-link=Francis R. Nicosia |title=Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JTtGXWzfD10C&pg=PA66 |date=2008 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location = Cambridge | isbn=978-0-521-88392-4}}
* {{cite book |last1=Tipton |first1=Frank B. |title=A History of Modern Germany Since 1815 |date=2003 |publisher=University of California Press |location=London |isbn=978-0-520-24049-0}}

'''Further reading'''
* {{cite book |last=Chickering |first=Rodger |title=Imperial Germany and the Great War, 1914–1918 |location=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2004 |isbn=0521547806 |ref=none}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Diest |first1=Wilhelm |first2=E. J. |last2=Feuchtwanger |name-list-style = amp | title=The Military Collapse of the German Empire: The Reality Behind the Stab-in-the-Back Myth |journal=War in History |year=1996 |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=186–207 |doi=10.1177/096834459600300203 |s2cid=159610049 |ref=none}}
* {{cite book |last=Schivelbusch |first=Wolfgang |title=The Culture of Defeat: On National Trauma, Mourning, and Recovery |location=New York |publisher=Picador |year=2001 |isbn=0312423195 |ref=none}}
* {{cite journal |last=Watson |first=Alexander |title=Stabbed at the Front: After 1918 the Myth Was Created That the German Army Only Lost the War Because It Had Been 'Stabbed in the Back' by Defeatists and Revolutionaries on the Home Front. Reviews the Clear Evidence That in Reality It Simply Lost the Will to Go on Fighting |journal=History Today |volume=58 |issue=11 |year=2008 |url=https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5030407169 |ref=none}}

==External links==
{{commons category|Stab-in-the-back legend}}
{{wiktionary}}
* [http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005175 Antisemitism] on the [[Florida Holocaust Museum]] website
* [http://www.germanjewishsoldiers.com/introduction.php Die Judischen Gefallenen] A Roll of Honor Commemorating the 12,000 German Jews Who Died for their Fatherland in World War I.
* [http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/publications/reviews/BarthRev069.htm#ill Book review by Harold Marcuse, with 15 "stab-in-the-back" illustrations, 1918–1942]
{{Antisemitism footer}}
{{Conspiracy theories}}{{Falsification of history}}{{Nationalism}}
{{Nazi Party}}

{{Authority control}}
[[Category:Aftermath of World War I in Germany]]
[[Category:Antisemitic tropes]]
[[Category:Antisemitism in Germany]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theories in Germany]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theories involving communism]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theories involving Jews]]
[[Category:Proto-Nazism]]
[[Category:German Revolution of 1918–1919]]
[[Category:Historical negationism in Germany]]
[[Category:Historiography of World War I]]
[[Category:Military and warfare conspiracy theories]]
[[Category:Military history of Germany during World War II]]
[[Category:Propaganda legends]]
[[Category:Right-wing antisemitism]]
[[Category:Victimology]]
[[Category:Weimar Republic]]