Talk:Stab-in-the-back myth/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There is still much POV going on here. I believe that this article requires major revision. 71.227.166.196 22:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC) -- This is very fascinating stuff, but would work better if it was under an English title, and the german used for a redirect. Is there a standard translation for this? "Legend of the stab in the back" looks like a home-made translation, and if my rusty german is correct, misses the "dagger" element.

---

Thank you! Glad it piqued your interest. In the literature I've read, it's usually just called the Dolchstosslegende as a matter of course and presented in translation only once. It's a pretty important term in Holocaust and Weimar studies, but the German term is the norm in my experience. What's the standard on here?

If there's a more exacting translation, though, I'd love to see it!

Thanks -- Dr.scientist

---

A rule -- to the extent that one can have rules in a wiki -- that's been crystallizing of late is "This is the English wikipedia". My take on it is to use an English term if it well-known in comparison to the word in the original language. For example, "Frederick the Great" instead of "Friedrich II", or "Bavaria" instead of "Bayern". But "Kristallnacht" is OK, because that's what an English speaker would generally call it too. Plus there are other issues that arise (for example, when to use Danzig or Gdansk).

If there's no reasonably common English translation of "Dolchstosslegende", then don't sweat it. I can't think of one, but then this is not a period I know well. -- Paul Drye

---

I did some digging and found that "Dolchstosslegende" is used more frequently in the literature, but the latest work that I had (Ian Kershaw's Hitler biography) used "stab-in-the-back legend" without introducing the German term. It is worth noting that, in doing so, he also didn't explain the term or put it in context, which implies that he assumed his readers would already know what he was on about. What say you all? Maybe add a redirect from Stab-in-the-Back Legend?

Dr.scientist

---

Sounds good to me

---

"Stab-in-the-back legend" is the standard English translation. It's somewhat clumsy, but one can't change it just like that, let alone in an article of this kind. I've removed "dagger-thrust legend", as this reads like an inept attempt by a pupil to persuade a teacher that one understands the literal meaning, competent translation should also endeavour to be helpful and considerate to the reader. To me, as a native-speaker of English, "dagger-thrust legend" conveys nothing. I suspect the misplaced preoccupation with daggers may have more to do with the vivid illustration than anything else.

Norvo 03:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Why do you blame the army for the "stab in the back" and why do you blame the army for Hitler's anti-semitism, this should use a NPOV dispute warning at the start of the article as it is totally biased and tries to get your own ideas accross rather then the truth

I totally agree. This article is about as biased as you can get. What is most funny is it claims the Treaty of Paris was mild compared to what the German's had in mind. What DID the Germans have in mind? The only comparison we have is the end of the Franco-Prussian war where the Germans were rather fair and the war debt was paid off very quickly. German soldiers were also not pervasively stationed in France. This was also after literally centuries of France constantly expanding its borders into German territory.

Usually Versailles is compared to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which looks a lot harsher than Versailles just from a glance at the map. However, Tsarist Russia, unlike Germany, was a multi-ethnic empire, and almost none of the territories lost by Russia at Brest-Litovsk were populated chiefly by ethnic Russians. On the basis, it would be fairer to compare Brest-Litovsk with the Treaty of Saint-Germain, the Treaty of Trianon or the Treaty of Sèvres, all of which are even harsher than Brest-Litovsk. GCarty 10:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we have the compromise terms of 1916, which were substantially uti possidetis leaving the Germans in control of the Low Countries and a strip of France. Presumably they would have awarded themselves more in victory. Septentrionalis 15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello. I came across this article and felt inspired to add a little commentary. It would be a mistake and major simplification to say that the scapegoating that came out of the post-war era was just an inability to face the facts and a refusal to accept the blame. Quite the contrary. The dolchstosslegende must have seemed like a very real possibility at the time - given the circumstances. And no, I don't mean just because of its exploitation through propaganda. I mean, if Germany really had understood why it lost the war, nobody in their right mind would have allowed Hitler to declare war on the United States without something like uboats to provoke the conflict.

In my addition, I tried to do the [1] <-- cite thing but I didn't know how.

Also, I added a link off of the main World War I page so people will actually find this article of use.

--24.72.227.2 11:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Hilter never declared war on the U.S. But the Jewish resistance to WWI is grossly absent from this article.--67.160.239.65 (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hitler declared war on the U.S. on December 11th. I think the Kriegsmarine asked him to consider it before then. While I suppose there may have been some Jewish opposition to WWI, that would have come as a surprise to Victor Klemperer.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"ß" is not an English letter, and should not be used in the title of an article in the English Wikipedia. Most who come across it won't know how to pronounce it, and it makes the article much harder to search for as well. I believe Wikipedia policy dictates that article titles should always use the standard 26-letter English alphabet (plus numbers, where appropriate), as opposed to any accents, graves, or other diacritical marks. (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions.) Personally, I know next to nothing of German spellings or romanizations; I write primarily Japan-related entries. Still, see Kyoto rather than Kyōto, and Tokyo as opposed to Tōkyō. LordAmeth 22:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Might the name Dolchstoss myth be preferable for the English Wikipedia?

Sure. My suggestion would be Dolchstosslegende, as that is probably how most would recognize the term. I have no problem with titling it according to the German name, just with using German letters that don't exist in English. I don't mean to sound heavy-handed or anything; I thank you for considering my comment. LordAmeth 23:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

So is it ok if someone goes ahead and makes the change? Wiki-policy is pretty clear on this one. The example they give is the perestroika article.Haber 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this change would be a good idea. "ss" is generally only used instead of ß when the latter is typographically impossible, and since there's very little to be gained in readability by using "ss", I see no point in making the change. In the case of city names such as Tokyo, those are well-established Anglicised forms (and this kind of orthographic change is very common for names anyway). In contrast, "Dolchstosslegende" is not an Anglicised form of "Dolchstoßlegende" -- it's just a rendition of the German form in an artifically restricted alphabet.

Regarding searching, the article would be no harder to search for if we had "Dolchstosslegende" as a redirect. Cadr 01:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The minimum requirement of use english is that titles use the modern 26-letter english alphabet. Obsolete English letters such as aesc, thorn and eth should be avoided, let alone letters unknown to English orthography, such as scharfes-s. There is nothing wrong with a [[transliterated] title, and I note that the pamphlet used as illustration avoids ß. As it stands, this is the appropriate title for the German-language Wikipedia, not the English. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I personally agree with LordAmeth, insofar as the body text of the article goes. Dolchstoss is not incorrect German, and is more understandable and pronouncable to readers of English Wikipedia. In the body of the article, I went ahead and changed it. We want people to quickly know how it is pronounced (even the sound clip requires two separate clicks and isn't that clear). For people who haven't studied German, ß looks like a B. Softlavender (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Und wo ist die Mitte? Ein Mythos ist weder wahr noch falsch. Und warum ist die Text noch gesichert? Und man kann das nicht "erwiesen", weil das Wesen eines Mythos die unfalschbarkeit, wieso die unbeweisbarkeit ist. Ksenon 14:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation — "Lies for some, belief for others — And where is the middle? A myth is neither true nor false. And why is the text still secured? And one cannot prove that, because the essence of a myth is its inability to be proven to be false, as it is unable to be proven at all."Lestrade 13:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

This was in the lede:

However, the primary focus was on the alleged debilitation of the war effort that began on the home front.

1) "However?" - do you instead mean "The..."? 2)"Primary focus?" - do you instead mean "initial rationale?" 3)"Debilitation?" - do you really mean "treasonous sedition and sabotage?" [sic] 4) "Home front?" - do you mean "In central Europe?" - where the war actually was, (coincidentally enough). Whoever wrote that should have become a quantum mechanic: particle spin and so forth. -Ste|vertigo 14:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The article states that Germany lost one third of its territory as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. The correct figure is about 11%. Norvo 03:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

From 1871 to 1945, Germany did lose almost one third of its territory. As for the 1919 treatment, I think the figure should be slightly larger.--User:Fitzwilliam 12:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the weasel to this section. Without its use of "some" and "others", there is nothing much here. Neither is a source mentioned for "it has been demonstrated how this happened to the United States during the Vietnam War". Infact, this section as a whole seems fairly badly done. Ultraviolent 04:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The "demonstrated" part should be removed, but providing sources in this article is out of place. We should instead mention simply and indeed generically that "some" have pointed that out, and link to the appropriate articles (Vietnam War and Stalin Note) for details on who and when. That's pretty standard treatment for "see also" and "related concepts" type sections. --Delirium 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole section is a bit of a mess. I don't believe the article is intended to be a general discussion of the history of accusations against "disloyal" people, "fifth-columnists" or "defeatists" in nations at war. The part of the entry that describes the "Cult of the Clitoris" in Britain is mildly interesting though probably not germane to the topic, as Great Britain was not a defeated power.

The section which purports to discuss public disillusionment with World War I in the U.S. is inaccurate and unsourced and again, not relevant to a discussion of the German Dolchstosslegende, which was a specific cultural-political phenomenon that ocurred in a country that was traumatized by defeat in a near-total war.

The article's treatment of a supposed Dolchstosslegende in recent U.S. history (Vietnam and Iraq) is even worse; using a citation from a leftist magazine such as Harper's as the sole source of information for ongoing events or controversial topics is unwise and does not meet Wikipedia standards. It wouldn't hurt the article editors to read or re-read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial. I'm not going to edit the article now, but I will clean it up if no one else does. Arcas2000 17:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following sections as being a novel synthesis (therefore violating NOR) and arguing a political point (therefore violating NPOV). There may be an appropriate place for this discussion, but I do not believe it is this article. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If these were written about elsewhere, a list of see also's or a category (Category:Betrayal theories?) would be reasonable, though. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one to re-write it, but I just wanted to throw my support to the idea that there exist similarities today in the U.S. The point is acutely driven home by [this http://ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon022007.gif] recent editorial cartoon. 209.137.225.29 07:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Britain in World War One

In other countries similar myths of internal betrayal were emerging towards the end of World War One, though in the eventually victorious Entente nations these soon faded. In Britain during Ludendorff's 1918 Spring Offensive the right-wing newspaper The Imperialist claimed that 47,000 members of the British establishment were secretly working for the Germans. The 47,000 were homosexuals and other "deviants" who were betraying the nation because the Germans had obtained a "black book" containing their names. These people were sexually corrupting members of the military and were passing information to the Germans. In some articles Jews were implicated along with homosexuals and people of German descent.^[1] As part of this campaign Noel Pemberton Billing, a right-wing member of Parliament, published an article in the newspaper entitled "The Cult of the Clitoris", in which he claimed that followers of Oscar Wilde in the circle of Wilde's ex-lover Robert Ross were part of the cult. The article led to a sensation and to a libel trial.^[2]

The USA after World War I

The dispute over the money the US had loaned the Allies, primarily the UK and France and their seeming inability or unwillingness to pay helped fuel the feeling that the country was drawn into the war by bankers on both sides of the Atlantic in order to safeguard their financial investments. This was underscored when the British and French repudiated their obligations in the mid 1930s.

Yalta

Another example missing here, I believe, of the "stabbed in the back" theory is the right-wing contruction of Churchill and FDR's agreement with Stalin at Yalta. See: http://hnn.us/articles/11835.html (article originally appeared in Slate.) And of course the narrative put forth by Time magazine that the ascendancy of Mao Tse Tung was the fault of liberals in the State Department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.78.140 (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam

Other wars have been viewed as winnable but lost due to some sort of homefront betrayal. For example, similar ideas emerged in the United States in the latter stages the Vietnam War, when counter cultural movements were similarly interpreted as peopled by "degenerates" or as being secretly manipulated by international Communist forces. These claims evolved into the idea of the so-called "Vietnam Syndrome", according to which US foreign policy was crippled by the withdrawal from Vietnam. However, others believe that this "syndrome" is a myth.^[3]

The War in Iraq

The July 14, 2006 issue of Harper's magazine has a article by Kevin Baker arguing that the myth should not be applied to the current war in Iraq:

Who could possibly believe in a plot to lose this war? No one cares that much about it. We have, instead, reached a crossroads where the overwhelming right-wing desire to dissolve much of the old social compact that held together the modern nation-state is irreconcilably at odds with any attempt to conduct such a grand, heroic experiment as implanting democracy in the Middle East. Without mass participation, Iraq cannot be passed off as an heroic endeavor, no matter how much Mr. Bush's rhetoric tries to make it one, and without a hero there can be no great betrayer, no skulking villain.^[4]

In opposition to this viewpoint, some Republicans have applied a 'stab-in-the-back' theory to opponents of the Iraq War. For example, Baker notes that talk radio host Rush Limbaugh accused Illinois Senator Dick Durbin of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," i.e., treason. Also according to Baker, President Bush's deputy chief of staff Karl Rove said: "Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." According to Baker, Bush said: "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will...As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them.".^[5]

I loath that i must come even close to appearing like a member of the irritating grammar police-but what i say is a proper complaint-and not about grammer-the langue and writing here is unacceptably familliar-it is not standard academic langauge and as such is hard to take seriously-i couldnt when i read it. Futhermore its poorly referenced

"many felt their country was being `ganged up on`

Is the word Italic textvictimisedItalic text for some reason unallowed

"The charges that the left wing (or whoever else you wished) had be complicit in Germanys defeat"

Or whoever else you wished? This is supposed to be a proper source of information-not a place for vagueries-include examples of `whoever else they may wish`.

Futhermore, it is suggested that the Dolchstoss was " a certral image in propoganda produced by the many right wing and traditionally conservative political parties that sprung up in the early days of the Weimar republic, including Hitlers NSDAP(NEITHER LEFT NOT RIGHT WING PARTY IN THE AMERICAN SENSE OF LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE)

Thats an unacceptable comment-not everyone reading is American, so the analogie may well be meaningless-for example,British liberals and conservatives dont resemble anything close to the American style-and what american tradition of conservatism-modern or early 20th century?Gashmak 20:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of your proposed changes, and I have added them to the text. Otherwise, I think this is a rather concise article, IMHO.--172.145.151.148 04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This article says that "as the war dragged on" the Germans lost faith in the progress that was being made. I happen to be reading Donald Kagan's "The Origins of War" and he says that the Germans were being told they were within months of victory up to the very day of surrender. Seems like a disconnect, but feel free to delete this if wrong.

I'm not an expert, and I certainly don't know from Donald Kagan, but if, say, the German people were still losing faith in the war's progress in spite of propaganda that assured them victory would be theirs in short order, both could be true. 99.140.183.211 (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a frequency search on Google Books:

• 424 on "the stab-in-the-back legend"
• 143 on "the stab-in-the-back myth"
• 118 on "the stab-in-the-back theory"
• 37 on "the stab-in-the-back thesis"
• 43 on "the Dolchstosslegende"
• 11 on "the Dolchstoßlegende" (probably underestimated since ß is often mis-OCRed)

Based on this (and, I suppose, my personal tastes) I'm moving the page to stab-in-the-back legend. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Haukur 10:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why use the article the? Googling exclusively English sites, I get:

• 17,700 hits on Dolchstosslegende
• 10,600 hits on Dolchstoßlegende
• 3,350 hits on stab-in-the-back myth
• 2,760 hits on stab-in-the-back theory
• 1,120 hits on stab-in-the-back legend
• 371 hits on stab-in-the-back thesis

Thus, we get 25 times as many hits for Dolchstosslegende/Dolchstoßlegende than for the current name of this article even just on English sites only. --87.154.19.130 (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I used the article 'the' to get English-language publications. In my experience the Google Books option to distinguish languages doesn't properly work. Or at least it didn't. But it looks like you're doing a regular Google search, I tend to give more weight to the printed stuff. Haukur (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You might also have a look at all the other English Wikipedia articles linking here which are predominantly written in common scholarly tone:

• 23 accurate results on Dolchstoßlegende[1]
• 36 accurate results on Dolchstosslegende[2]
• 1 result on stab-in-the-back (whatever)[3], and it's this one article as the only one calling this the official name for this myth in anglophone scholarly research.

This time, it's even 59 times as many hits for Dolchstosslegende/Dolchstoßlegende than for the current name of this article. There's also ample precedent in articles on German history, historical politics, and political/philosophical thought such as Anschluss, Ahnenerbe, Autobahn, Bauhaus, Bildungsroman, Blitzkrieg, Drang nach Osten, Endsieg, Feindsender, Führerprinzip, Geist, Gleichschaltung, Großdeutschland, Historikerstreit, Kaiser, Kaiserlich und königlich, Kleinstaaterei, Kriegsspiel, Kristallnacht, Kulturkampf, Künstlerroman, Lebensraum, Lumpenproletariat, Machtergreifung, Methodenstreit, Nordpolitik, Ostalgie, Ostpolitik, Ostsiedlung, Pickelhaube, Preußenschlag, Realpolitik, Rechtsstaat, Reich, Reichstag, Reichswehr, Reinrassig, Stahlhelm (Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten), Stasi, Stunde Null, Sturm und Drang, Sudetenland, Übermensch, Umvolkung, Untermensch, Vergangenheitsbewältigung, Volksdeutsche, Volkseigener Betrieb, Volksgemeinschaft, Volkssturm, Volksverhetzung, Vormärz, Wehrmacht, Welteislehre, Weltpolitik, Weltschmerz, Wirtschaftswunder, Zeitgeist, Zollverein. --87.154.1.102 (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed the above mentioned section from the article. Followed link to cited source and it appears to be an anti-Semitic publication.

It would be more correct to say, "Removed due to Original Research & nonsense on an uncredible website." In anycase, good spot and removal. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, forgot to sign...Omakii (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering how this can be called a legend, as the factors that it names for Germany's defeat are still the subject of considerable debate, and therefore legend is a matter of opinion. Mnmazur (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a POV term that reflects the most popular historical interpretation today. The notion that disloyalty was an instrumental cause of the loss of the war could be a fact, an opinion, or self-deception/wanton falsehood. "Stab-in-the-back legend" is a term used by those who adopt the lattermost view. The article fails to take the last step back to reach an objective view--namely that the "Stab-in-the-back legend" is a widely-accepted theory of interpreting 20th century German history. Because belief in the "stab-in-the-back" and the "November Crime," etc., are associated with the rise of Nazism, there is a tendency to apply political correctness to the matter and accept the total falsity of the "Legend"--which is why it is called a legend. The article should explore this issue better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.220.236 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, it should be no problem to provide sources saying so. --Dodo19 (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend "War against war: British and German radical movements in the First World War" by Francis Ludwig Carsten; Univ of Calif. Press 1982; pp 124-166, 208-230. The theory of the "Stab-in-the-back legend" has a historicity separate from the supposed content of the legend itself. The current version of the article does not say so explicitly, but it is, instead, a glaring artifact of that truth.

A user called Matthead is attached to some POV material about Germany's peace feelers during the First World War. This material is not only unsupported by references, but also irrelevant to this article, and in my opinion, should not be restored again. I think a separate article on the failed attempts to negotiate peace during WW1 would be very interesting, however. APW (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is odd, out of focus and seems to be an attempt to be unduly subtle:

The Dolchstoßlegende was the accepted antithesis of the War Guilt Clause, as the latter was in stark contrast to what the population found to be factual.

The Dolchstosslegende was pure denialism - denial of defeat. It wasn't some kind of ingenious retort to reparations. What infuriated the hardline German nationalists even more than the Treaty of Versailles was the armistice of November 1918. There was endless talk about die November-Verbrecher (November criminals), none about Juni-Verbrecher (June Criminals). Something needs to be done about that sentence. Norvo (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Dolchstoßlüge was indeed used as a retort to the War Guilt Clause, as such that both the defeat and the Treaty of Versailles were blamed on enemies that were jointly trying to destroy Germany, no matter whether these enemies were operating outside of Germany or within her. From this identification of the domestic and the foreign enemy as the same, it was easy to target Jews, as "aliens without a nation to call home" (in a form of catch-22, they were denigrated as both Capitalist "Goldene Internationale" and socialist "Rote Internationale" alike), and Leftists who considered themselves internationalists, even moreso when both of these groups benefited from the lost war in the eyes of the anti-democratic monarchists and nationalists.

In short, the Dolchstoßlegende incorporated the belief in a Wagnerian global (or at least Europe-wide) cabal bent upon destroying Germany, as such that those accusing Germany of being the central agressor and instigator of WWI were the same as those that had initiated her defeat in the war, or had acted out of the same motives. For instance, compare Lost Cause of the Confederacy, where neo-confederates have claimed that the Confederate Cause was right and just, that the US Civil War was in fact started and conducted by the North as an attempted "genocide" of the South, and that the South lost to a morally inferior enemy only due to treachery or being overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

True, there was no such term as Juniverbrecher, however the Novemberverbrecher were thought to be in most amicable complicity and agreement with the Schanddiktat of Versailles, which was why the political Right referred to the governments of Weimar Germany as Erfüllungspolitiker, or "lackeys", to the Allies, especially those that had signed the Treaty or argued for its acceptance in public at the loss of any other realistic option, so I guess there you have your "Juniverbrecher". Most notably, take Matthias Erzberger who in 1918 had negotiated the armistice and that the term of Erfüllungspolitiker was originally coined for; Erzberger was henceforth also accused of being Jewish, and shortly thereafter assassinated. Take Walther Rathenau, who was likewise assassinated after signing the Treaty of Rapallo. Or take Kurt Eisner who was assassinated as head of the Bavarian Soviet Republic. All these assassinations occured in close succession to the lost war and the Treaty of Versailles, while Germany was still suffering the tumultuous aftermath of the war. All three were assassinated for being Erfüllungspolitiker to the Allies by "having betrayed Germany", seeking to destroy her by serving the Allies, and because all three were either Jewish or accused as such.

Among believers in the Dolchstoßlegende, there were different factions as to the actual causes of the war, with some arguing that all involved nations were to blame equally, and the radicals who said that the war had only been started by Germany's enemies to destroy the nation. In Mein Kampf and most of Hitler's public speeches concerning the causes of the war, we find a mix of both views, as such that "Aryan" soldiers and politicians were innocent victims of "Jewish manipulations" that led to the Great War (which, however, stands in notable contrast to Hitler's general bellicist and social-Darwinist notions glorifying war as a mean of natural selection in the struggle for life among the nations). --79.193.30.158 (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This should be removed as the source is partisan and clearly has a political agenda here. The only relevance this is that someone recently wrote an accusation comparing (by way of intermediary) the American right to Nazis. and we should hereby invoke Godwin's law if nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.202.2 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"in 1968, Marine Col. William R. Corson complained that other officers were preparing “an American version of the German ‘stab in the back’ myth” to excuse their failure to win the war, claiming that politicians had forced them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs" - This predates 'Godwin's law' and the internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.45.140 (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

He's referring to the quote from Harper's Magazine. In citing a clearly partisan editorial piece as an example of "stab-in-the-back legend" in America, with no frame of reference regarding the politics involved, all neutrality in that section of this article has gone completely out the window. There are theories all over American politics regarding the fact that the United States' greatest enemies are within, but they are mostly rumors and speculation. If a more academic source cannot be found addressing the use of this legend in American politics, preferably one that does not make a thinly-veiled comparison between American Republicans and Nazis, then I contend that the Harper's Magazine quote be removed. EDIT: I have done so. If anybody feels it is still relevant to the article as a whole, feel free to put it back up. 72.196.101.238 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

About rumours, speculation and academic sources. Walt and Mearsheimer perhaps but only implicit, explicating it in "legend form" wold probably count as original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.154.70 (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Turns out that the inumerous strikes tha occured in 1917 were all fomented by Jews and other communist likes. Also the manipulated media of the time were frequently trying to undermine german morale during the war.

How could a strike in steel and ammunitions factories in mid-war not affect german warfare? Therefore.....this is NOT a legend.

P.S. - Russia didn't leave, no one simply leaves a war, Russia had LOST!!!

The only legend here is the author's neutral position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.245.212.2 (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the author simply ment that Russia removed its troops from the war because they were dealing with a civil war on their homefront. Chocohall (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In the postcard illustration, is the stabber supposed to be a Jewish version of Marianne of France? How come? Hexmaster (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

	An image used in this article, File:1920 poster 12000 Jewish soldiers KIA for the fatherland.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

	An image used in this article, File:Stab-in-the-back postcard.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

	An image used in this article, File:Stab-in-the-back cartoon 1924.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The nominations above are somwhat suspicious, having been made by an account created in February, but which didn't edit until today, and that was to nominate these three images, plus one other, for deletion. The nominations seem to be politically motivated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll go to Commons and !vote keep. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The German version of Wikipedia quotes an article of Sir Frederick Barton Maurice in the Daily News of November 12 1918 as one of the bases of Dolchstoßlegende, especiallly via a subsequent article in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung of December 17, 1918. Could anybody verify what Maurice actually wrote and/or said? Robert Schediwy (Vienna) 86.33.220.91 (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Belated signature --Robert Schediwy (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S.:This isn't a new comment, I just have added my signature belatedly. As you can see, my question dates of 2008. At any rate I am thankful to the person who moved this to the bottom of the list, so maybe somebody will pay attention to it.--Robert Schediwy (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert: My mistake. Sorry that I don't have an answer for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely it should be the stab in the back myth? that is what I have always known it as (Fdsdh1 (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC))

You appear to be correct, A Google search shows 898K hits for "myth" but only 135K hits for "legend". Because of this, I have boldly moved the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The article should be an analysis of the factors giving rise to this theory, myth or legend are both unacceptable by definition and the reasoning that this is due to the sensitive topic of Nazism demonstrates a clear bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.142.240 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain your problem more clearly? Are you suggesting a different article title?--Boson (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is the controlling policy here. "Myth" is clearly the most used name in English, with many more Ghits than "legend", while "theory" has only 20K hits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother... Drmies (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not really a theory as it is completely false and was fabricated by Hindenburg and Ludendorff in the enquiry after WW1, despite the fact Germany has surrendered on advice of the army, therefore it is a myth (legend suggests element of truth, theory implies it could be rational) (Fdsdh1 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

I agree with Fdsdh1 -- he has it exactly right. Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So legend would be even more accurate than myth, the article should properly examine the origin of the subject based on history rather than who might have abused it to gain power. The supposed myth is based on the fact that those who organized the revolution that overthrew the monarchy had criticised the military leadership during the war while also organizing the strike on all war materials during the height of the Allied campaign and while Germany needed to be redeploying the bulk of its forces to the western front. The harsh penalties imposed on Germany after the war makes this of even more macro-historical importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.142.240 (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Legend is a mistranslation (false friend) of the German Legende, which in this context means myth.--Boson (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So I'm to assume that when legende translates to legend, it really means myth... I wonder what mythos means when you translate it to myth, I guess legend. Really both terms are invalid as this is an analysis of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.142.240 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You can assume whatever you wish, and you may think whatever you want about the "inaccuracy" of the analysis, but the common English name is clearly "Stab-in-the-back myth", and the article is well-sourced, so any additions or changes to it which are not supported by equally reliable and unbiased sources will be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think most people on this forum agree that the said title should be amended to "Stab in the Back Theory". Please refrain from acting like such a Nazi yourself Beyond My Ken and STOP reverting it back from what the common consensus seems to be. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.19.22 (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

1. This is not a forum.
2. Please do not imply that other editors are acting like Nazis.
3. I do not see a consensus (or even "most people") in favour of your suggestion.

--Boson (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The clear consensus is to leave it exactly where it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Article doesn't mention Balfour agreement, a major part of the stab in the back theory.

The 'jews' in Germany were the best treated in Europe before world war 1. They held high political positions and controlled most of the financial sector. When war broke out Germany was well on its way to winning and Britain was being offered a peace deal quite favourable to them. However a group of Zionists from Germany went the the UK and told the government not to sign it as they had the power to bring the USA into the war and turn the tide on Germany. In return they wanted Britain to ensure that it, having the power to do so, give them a home land in Palistine. This deal was done and called The Balfour Agreement. Read- http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm Or listen to- http://m.beemp3.com/download.php?file=4830674&song=The+Balfour+Declaration

This deal brought about the defeat and humiliation of Germany in 1918 and for many years after great poverty and anguish for ALL Germans.

It did not take long for the citizens of Germany to discover the truth around the Balfour agreement. The angst experience was extreme. A deep hatred developed toward all Jews and was encouraged by those with a political agenda.

There is evidence of an attempt by the Jewish Congress for a boycott of German goods or a trade war. This, in combination with the Balfour agreement deal, set up the Jews as an enemy of the German state.

For many, the word Jew or Jewish defines a religion. Like most religions it is elitist in that if you are a Jew you are one of God's chosen people i.e. you are better than those who are are not. This is a strong belief of the Zionist but thankfully they represent only a small proportion of Jews. Unfortunately they are the ones with the financial and political power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.37.25 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If reliable sources can be provided to show that the Balfour Declaration was integral to the Dolchstoßlegende, then it should be mentioned. Please name appropriate sources and propose what you want added to the article.

At the moment the article seems to present the topic neutrally, giving due weight to mainstream views; the NPOV tag was inappropriate. --Boson (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

http://fighthatred.com/recent-events/national-political-hate/684-nazi-propaganda-and-the-arab-world

http://books.google.com/books?id=Kiug84qYTaYC&pg=PA734&lpg=PA734&dq=Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende+balfour&source=bl&ots=NcJxS43iSD&sig=C_aNGXfR_1mqv-LpWeUtPRvlAy8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Mu4GUb-LC6jl0QGqmoH4Ag&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende%20balfour&f=false

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~shaked/Holocaust/lectures/lec5.html

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/zionism.htm

Der Schulungsbrief 3 (April 1936), pp. 149-150:

"Non-Jewish observers and writers on Zionism, who see political Zionism only as an attempt at "national renewal" rather than an effort to establish a unified Jewish leadership as well as Jewish rule over the world, are therefore incorrect. The confusion of political Zionism with Palestine can be understood only through the Jewish prophecies in which Jewry is assured of control over all the goods of this world. Knowing that the time was near, and would culminate in taking possession of Palestine, Zionism developed the nonsensical notion of an "historic claim" to the "promised land," to which Jews "without any outside pressure" would gradually emigrate. In the ideology of political Zionism, Palestine fulfilled the role of an indispensable part of prophecy, just as certain rules are the guarantee for success in the magical ceremonies of primitive peoples. Political Zionism never intended Palestine to be the destination of all Jews, but rather it merely wants to make Palestine the center of Jewish world policy. That must naturally be protected by a strong Jewish population. The Zionist publication Jüdische Rundschau wrote: "No one at any time has proposed that all Jews today should emigrate to Palestine." Nah um Sokolow, Weizmann's colleague and current chairman of the Zionist Committee, said it clearly in 1921: "The Jewish people wants to return to Palestine; the Jewish people will have its center in Palestine. Large parts of Jewry will live as a Jewish periphery in the world. They must be cared for; their dignity and their national rights must be assured." This is also clear from the text of the state treaty Jewry concluded with England, the so-called Balfour Declaration: "His Majesty's Government favors the establishment of a national home in Palestine for the Jews, and we will make the greatest efforts to reach this goal, although it is clearly understood that nothing will be done that will affect the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political standing of Jews in any other country. "

The Nazis mentioned Zionism (if not specifically the Balfour agreement) often in their propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.37.25 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2013‎ (UTC)

So we have consensus that the Balfour Declaration is not relevant to this article (though it might be relevant to other articles). --Boson (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

agreed--leave it out. Rjensen (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not relevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This page is getting a bit long and cluttered, so I propose to set up automatic archiving. If there are no objections, I will set it up to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days. --Boson (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Boson (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is this quoted at all? It's from an arcticle that doesn't cite any sources, nor is there any indication of it being an account of real events. It's most likely fiction and can't be used as it is now.

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.

The "eyes lit up" part alone should be clue enough. The only one who could report with that level of detail would be General Malcolm or another attendant. It isn't demonstrated or self-evident that Wheeler-Bennett, the source, was. --84.63.186.214 (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the edit war (diff), it seems appropriate to discuss rather than carry it out in breech of the three revert rule. The above edit makes three changes:

1) Removing the word "enormous" from the description of the reparations imposed on Germany, as POV pushing
2) Removing the comment that German continued to pay First World War reparations following the ending of the Second World War
3) Amending the comment stating that Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles "forced Germany to accept complete responsibility for the hostilities."

Evidence in support of these changes:

1) The US Foreign Office (and supported by secondary sources) archive holds the note the German government sent to them suggesting they would pay 50 billion in reparations: http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS.FRUS1921v02 (page 46). Secondary Sources highlight that the Reparation Commission, in 1921, established Germany had to pay 132 billion in reparations. However, of this sum Germany was only required to pay 50 billion. See Marks, Sally (1978), "The Myths of Reparations", Central European History, Vol. 11 (No. 3), Cambridge University Press: pp.231-255, JSTOR 4545835 {{citation}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help), a widely quoted and respected piece of work. Most histories on the subject support this point. If Germany was required to pay a sum equal to what they had offered to pay, stating reparations were "enormous" is clearly POV pushing.
2) The Lausanne Conference of 1932 resulted in all reparations being halted. They were never resumed. As the following Time article highlights, reparations were not restarted after the Second World War rather Germany was required to pay off loans they had taken out during the inter-war period to pay reparations: http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2023140,00.html
3) The actual wording of Article 231 is available in many sources, and most handily here online. It does not state Germany has to accept complete responsibility for the war.

RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are blatant POV-pushing contrary to every standard history of post World War I Europe and the causes of World War II. Any source you may be relying on is non-standard and unreliable. Your edits in other others push this same POV consistently, which is contrary to the collected wisdom of the majority of historians. Wikipedia is not the place to publicize your counter-historical viewpoint, I suggest you start a blog, or print posters or something. In the meantime, I am not going to allow you to misrepresent the standard history in this area, regardless of the consequences. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just protected the page for three days to stop the edit warring and encourage dispute resolution. I can probably help with checking contested journal sources (as long as they're online!) if that would be useful. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Please do. My personal library is currently sitting in 100+ boxes behind my sofa, awating the arrive of bookcases to put them in, so I cannot respond with specifics, but I am certain this editor's contributions are entirely contrary to the standard historical view of German WWI reparations. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I would ask Ken to address the three points raised in the initial posting here, rather than continue to rant...

It would also be nice for him to address how he believes how the actual wording of the Treaty of Versailles, the actual German offer to pay reparations as archived with the US State Department, Sally Marks (a well respected and quoted historian), A Reassessment after 75 Years - containing articles written by well established historians who are essentially the leading voices in the field - are not the "standard history" on the subject.

Nick, if needed, I can email you Mark's Myths of Reparations if you cannot access the full journal entry. In addition, I would suggest checking out Ken's recent sprout of petty vandalism to articles.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Petty vandalism, nothing. This editor is obviously here to push a specific POV, so I undid some of those POV edits. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So, Myths of Reparations is the source of this POV. A single paper which contradicts dozens of histories. I think we're dealing with a WP:FRINGE problem here. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Care to address points 2 and 3, or why you reverted the change in the text regarding them?

Sally Marks is not a Fringe theory, your counter to the removal of the POV pushing word "enormous". Marks was used to support "In addition, Germany was required to pay reparations for the civilian damage they had caused,^[6]"

Do you deny that German was required to pay reparations following the war, or that reparations were confined to only civilian damages rather than military costs (article 232 of the TOV)? Although I concede that war pensions and widow allowances are also included, however that seemed beyond the scope of this article.

It is surprising that you think her work is contradicted by dozens of sources when she is one of the most quoted works on reparations. I would suggest you run a search and see how her work is neither a fringe theory on reparations and how she has inspired further discussion and research on the subject. Considering you state you have hundreds of books on the subject of the inter-war period, I am surprised at the apparent allegation that you have never heard of her. At any rate, practically any source on reparations could be used to highlight that the 1921 reparation commission figure of 132 billion gold marks is indeed complicated or that German offered to pay a sum of money equal to what she was required to pay. At any rate, Germany never paid the sum (50 billion or 132 billion).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I care to address nothing. You clearly based your POV on Sally Marks' article, and the rest is pure OR on your part. Again, as I said on your talk page, read WP:FRINGE, which covers your edits. If you had standard histories which buttressed yourviewpoint, I feel certain you'd have quoted them, but you have not, because they don't. Wikipedia doesn't exist for publicizing outre theories, it's an encyclopedia which reports what the majority of historians report - which is not what you espouse. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that you will not address the points raised. You have just confirmed that further discussion is useless, so I shall await an admin or third party to call this one. I would also ask them to look at the pattern of edits you have made over the last hour or so on unrelated articles (blatant vandalism to Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles, reverting what the source material states Liverpool Blitz, and petty reversions British war crimes) and on my talk page. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I will address the points when you can point to a standard history that confirms your WP:FRINGE POV. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Would me checking sources be of any use here? I've looked at the Marks reference and it supports most of what is being cited to it (it doesn't appear to describe clause 231 as being the most important, though it does note that it lead to much debate in Germany and was of importance). BMK, what sources state that those journal articles are advancing a fringe POV? Google Scholar shows that the Marks article is still being cited in scholarly works [4], though the nature of such cites obviously isn't demonstrated (and 33 citations since 1978 isn't a huge number in a field such as this). Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nick, every single reference work you'd care to look at will support the standard contention that the reparations required of Germany played havoc with their economy, contributed to the instability of the post WWI German government, contributed to the government's inability to deal with the rampant inflation which hit the country during the Great Depression, which contributed mightily to the rise of Hitler, who offered to the Germany people some sense of dignity after the ignominious terms of the Treaty of Versailles. I have no specific references to offer you, due to my particular circumstance (books in boxes, as described), but just go to any library or a Barnes & Noble and pick up a history of World War I which deals with the consequences of the post-war situation, or a history of World War II which details what led up to the war. Any of these texts will give you the standard history, agreed upon by the vast majority of historians, which will counter the very specific and and WP:FRINGE views of Sally Marks. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that relevant to the material in question here? [5]. I've also read fairly widely on this topic, and the particular statements which are being referenced to this journal article seem pretty unremarkable. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ken, am sorry, but what you are calling the standard view is half of a very complicated and still ongoing debate. There is no historical consensus that reparations caused inflation (which occurred prior to the Great Depression), and there is no consensus that inflation or reparation contributed mightily to the rise of Hitler.

For example, Erik Goldstein and Niall Ferguson argue - to use two examples, and both arguments sourced from A Reassessment after 75 - that reps played a role in hyperinflation. On the other hand, Gerhard Weinberg, Anthony Lentin, Sally Marks, and P.M.H Bell - to name a few - all state that they played little role in the issue and hyperinflation was solely caused by the German government. Iirc hyperinflation had ceased by the end of the decade, well before the rise in popularity for the Nazis. Adam Tooze argues that the Nazis were practically broke by this point.

In regards to the rise of Hitler, Louise Slavicek states that modern historical consensus is that the ToV did not cause the rise of the Nazis. Richard Evans, among others, blames the Great Depression for bringing about the rise of Hitler. Bell also highlights this, although he notes that some historians hold that the ToV caused a crises that in part resulted in their rise.

I could go on. It is simply not true that there is only one "standard" view. There is a standard outline, if you will, but the details of why things happened are argued differently by practically every historian (I could highlight the - off topic - case of AJP Taylor or Fritz Fischer whose findings about the First and Second World Wars sparked outrage and debate. They are still being argued about today, decades afterwards.).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

For this article, it is the immediately post-War perception in Germany that is more important than later re-assessments or de facto revisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Rather than use words like "enormous", perhaps we could write that the reparations were "billions of gold marks, which the Germans had no realistic chance of paying ". In an article about the effect of the perception of reparations immediately following World War (particularly in a section headed "1919") , I am not very happy about the statements relativizing the amount of reparations based on the situation in 1932; it gives the impression of a revisionist agenda. Reverting the comments about the situation in 1932 also solves the problem of the misleading reference Boemeke p.424, which if I understand the reference correctly, would be better attributed to Ferguson, i.e. it should read:

• Ferguson, Niall (1998). "The Balance of Payments Question". In Boemeke, Manfred F.; Feldman, Gerald D.; Glaser, Elisabeth (eds.). Versailes: A Reassessment after 75 Years. Publications of the German Historical Institute. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-62132-8.

But that might be read as implying that Ferguson (and/or the editors) agree with Marks's assessment. In my opinion, the proposed wording gives undue emphasis to the relativization of the reparations burden, as represented by the position of Sally Marks and Stephen Schuker. If we are citing Gerald Feldman, we should remember what he wrote in the cited book:

"Sally Marks, ever eager to defend the feasibility of the reparations settlement, appears cheerlessly resigned to the hopelessness of the cause in the real world of post-Versailles Europe" and "Indeed, apparently the only people who really believed that the Germans could fulfill their reparations obligations, the real obligations that is, . . . are some historians. I emphasize some historians because I simply do not agree when Marks says, 'The scholarly consensus now suggests that paying what was actually asked of it was within Germany's capacity.' Peter Krüger does not share this view; neither do I, and neither does Ferguson . . . "

As regards the "war guilt clause": we should, in the text, perhaps note how it was perceived and quote it in a footnote:

"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

That should give readers the opportunity to assess whether that means that Germany and her allies accepted responsibility for all loss and damage and that Germany and her allies were the aggressors, who imposed the war on the Allies – and whether that explains the use of the term "war guilt".

As regards when reparations were finally paid: to avoid misleading the reader, we should perhaps state explicitly that some reparations were paid by issuing government debt secured by bonds, and that it was these bonds that were finally repaid in full in 2010.

See also the discussion at Talk:Treaty of Versailles#Assessment of the treaty. --Boson (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree on a few things:

"billions of gold marks, which the Germans had no realistic chance of paying"

The first half of the sentence would be find, as oppose to stating they were enormous. However, the second half is back into the realm of POV pushing. Per the discussion above, there is a massive debate on whether Germany could or could not pay and historians have sided with both side of the coin.

"But that might be read as implying that Ferguson (and/or the editors) agree with Marks's assessment. "

The page cited, is Ferguson confirming that reparations ceased in 1932 (as opposed to 1931 as currently stated in the article). It could be easily replace by practically any source on reparations that confirm they ended in 1932. On said page he also provides his information on what he calculated what the Germans eventually paid. I don't see how, given the wording I used, it could be shown as Ferguson agreeing or disagreeing with any one particular historian. The wording used in the article made no judgment: it merely stated Germany had to pay them, and that they ceased in 1932 rather than the current wording that implies they were resumed.

In regards to the war guilt question: considering the nature of the article it is perfectly fine to highlight what the Germans believed it meant: that would be vitally important. However, the article cannot right state - as it does now - that it meant something else. That is ahistorical and misleading the reader. The change of wording, as proposed, outlined what it meant and stated that the Germans believed differently.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe "which the Germans had no realistic chance of paying" is not POV pushing but a correct assessment of the mainstream view (and the sentence should probably be amended to state just that) with regard to the reparations demanded in the Treaty (i.e. the position in 1921) – with the possible exception of Marks and Schuker, though I'm not sure I could name a statement by either of them that unequivocally claims that Germany could have paid the amount actually stated in the Treaty. Marks does write ". . . paying what was actually asked of it was within Germany's financial capacity", but I think her "actually" means that it refers to some later and/or imagined , reduced demands. Blurring this may (or may not) be a deliberate tactic on the part of some historians. Are any (other) editors suggesting that the mainstream view was other than that the Germans could not begin to pay the reparation to the tune of billions of gold marks as demanded in the Treaty (not in 1932 or 1924!).

As regards Ferguson: that is the point about citing Ferguson on the 1932 issue. That further reparations ceased to be paid is not in dispute but has nothing to do with what was happening in the immediate post-War period being talked about. Mentioning it at all in the context of the perception of reparations immediately following the Treaty of Versailles gives the impression of strong bias in the sense of preemptively telling the reader not to attach importance to the first half of the sentence. It could be understood that Ferguson is cited as supporting the whole sentence, including the concessive conjunction "although", which relativizes the first half of the sentence, and including the word "abolished" (rather than "discontinued" or "ceased"), which is also problematic. In fact, Ferguson does not appear to share the view implied by the insertion of that sentence; he writes "the annuity demanded in 1921 put an intolerable strain on the state's finances". Perhaps we should replace your sentence with a paraphrase of what Ferguson wrote.

As regards the war guilt clause: your proposed change seems to leave out the bit about accepting that Germany and her allies were the aggressors, who imposed the war on the Allies. We should quote the Treaty article in its entirety. --Boson (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree on the assertion that the mainstream view is that reps were unpayable. For example, Diane Kunz states that the historical consensus is that that view has been debunked. At any rate, if they were payable or not is beyond the scope of this article. The article is about the stab in the back myth. Reparations played a role in the German sense of humiliation etc, that should be the primarily focus not on who agrees or disagrees with if they were lenient, heavy, payable or unpayable. Any source could have been used (not just the one I quickly picked) to highlight that reparations had ceased by 1932 (again not 1931 as the article currently states) and Ferguson does indeed note this. The article already highlights that reps ceased (although with the wrong date).

As for the war guilt issue, you again appear to be discussing information outside the scope of this article. I believe that, if the article is going to be mentioned, it should be done so to let the reader know what the Allied Powers intended it for and that it should then be contrasted with what the Germans thought it meant and how they felt about it. No one at the peace conference, or before hand - not even the German delegation - opposed the issue that the Central Powers were the aggressors(the 14 Points, the Lansing note, the German delegation comments at Versailles). The German beef was with the fact they believed they were being declared solely responsible. Again, that seems beyond the scope of the article, which - I believe - should attempt to focus on the German reaction rather than provide our own interpretation of what certain words in the clause mean.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have some reservations about the new proposed wording, but I would prefer to wait for input from others before making an alternative proposal. --Boson (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I would consider looking at the third section I have added below, as that could change the entire conversation from wording to inclusion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was first concentrating on the changes in 1932 and then thinking that the 1921 arrangements did not really belong, either. While trying to reformulate the paragraph, I was also coming to the conclusion that most or all of the treaty issues do not belong here. --Boson (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Current wording

German popular reaction to the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 was highly negative. As a result of the Treaty, Germany's territory was reduced by about 13%, several million ethnic Germans came under foreign rule, even though they were the majority in many of those areas, the Rhineland was demilitarized and Allied troops occupied several areas (See Territorial changes after World War I). There were also enormous^{[citation needed]} war reparations to be paid over a period of 70 years, although they ended in 1931^{[citation needed]} (but were resumed after World War II^{[citation needed]}). The most important aspect of the Treaty relating to the Dolchstoßlegende was the War Guilt Clause (Kriegsschuldklausel), which forced Germany to accept complete responsibility for the hostilities.^{[citation needed]}

• fact tags added to highlight disputed points

Proposed change

... Germany was also required to pay reparations for the damages they had caused during the war (Bell, p. 21; Marks, pp. 231–2). A major aspect of the treaty, in regards to Dolchstoßlegende,^{[citation needed]} was Article 231, the so-called War Guilt Clause (Kriegsschuldfrage). The article served as a legal basis for the following articles of the reparations section of the treaty, which obliged Germany to pay compensation for the damage they had caused. The following articles of the treaty then limited German liability to civilian damages.(ToV, articles 231 and 232; Martel, p. 272; Marks, pp. 231-2) However, rather than being seen as a "clever attempt to limit actual German financial responsibility",(Boemeke, p. 524) the German people were outraged at what they saw as a national humiliation and Germany being unjustly punished (Binkley, p. 400; Morrow, p. 290). German politicians declared that the article was forcing Germany to accept full responsibility for the war (Binkley, p. 399; Craig, p. 141; Boemeke, p. 537–8).

• fact tag inserted since a source is needed to establish the German anger at the Treaty of Versailles being directly related to the myth surrounding the German belief that they had won the war had they not been stabbed in the back by the "traitors" on the home front.

Sources:

• Bell, P.M.H. (1997) [1986]. The Origins of the Second World War in Europe
• Binkley, Robert C.; Mahr, Dr. A. C. (June 1926), "A New Interpretation of the "Responsibility" Clause in the Versailles Treaty"
• Boemeke (Editor), Manfred F.; Feldman (Editor), Gerald D. & Glaser (Editor), Elisabeth (1998). Versailes: A Reassessment after 75 Years.
• Craig (Editor), Gordon Alexander & Gilbert (Editor), Felix (1994) [1953]. The Diplomats 1919–1939
• Marks, Sally (September 1978), "The Myths of Reparations"
• Martel, Gordon, ed. (2010). A Companion to Europe 1900-1945.
• Morrow, The Great War: An Imperial History

Should a debate on the ToV even be in this article?

Per my comment, in the above section, that a source would be needed to link the notion that the war guilt issue was the most important part of the stab in the back myth (never mind the Treaty of Versailles as a whole) I have conducted a quick search on the subject. Using the search query "war guilt stab in the back", the below are a number of sources off the first page of Google Books.

• Goemans, H. E. War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination and the First World War: The war-guilt issue thus served its purpose much in the way that the "stab-in-the-back" legend served the army: as an escape from the political consequences of defeat." (p.121)
• Herwig, Holger H. The Great War and the Twentieth Century: "Germans after 1918 used the myths of "war-guilt" and "Stab-in-the-back" to restore a lost imperial order." (p. 300)
• Herwig, Holger H. The Marne, 1914: The Opening of World War I and the Battle that Changed the World: "... two of the best-known and most "highly explosive" German "moral-psychological complexes" arising form the World War I - "war-guilt question" of 1914 and the "Stab-in-the-back legend" of 1918 ..." (p. 1)
• Legro, Jeffrey W. Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order: "Together, the stab-in-the-back and war-guilt myths ..." (p. 106)
• Morris, Douglas G. Justice Imperiled: The Anti-Nazi Lawyer Max Hirschberg in Weimar Germany: German journalist Paul Nikolaus Coassman (p. 67), in 1924, attacked (p.158) USPD leader Kurt Eisner (p.30) - who stated that Germany "had been guilty of starting the war" - linking the "two lies" of the stab in the back myth and the war guilt argument together. Cossmann concluded "in the German character, the lie about [Germany's war] guilt was the most important foundation and precondition of the stab in the back" (p. 158)
• Waite, Robert G. L. The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler: "It seems likely that the underlying reason for the surprising popularity and longevity of the war guilt debate was psychological. Like the legend of the stab in the back, it could not be sustained by rational argument." (p. 310)

The above sources clearly identify the stab in the back and war guilt as two very separate issues and not interlinked (with the exception of a German journalist at the time making a libel case - five years after the time period of the article section - against a politician who believed Germany was guilty). This raises the question - and at least demands further research (as I do not have the time to trawl through every page of Google books, at the moment, to see what additional sources state) - as to weather the entire second paragraph of the 1919 section should be even included in the article and perhaps invalidates the debate on wording per the initial section of this discussion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I would be in favour of removing the whole paragraph. . . . without prejudice; if someone later showed that the term was also applied to politicians at home who did not vigorously oppose the terms of the Treaty, there might be a case for including something about the terms of the treaty, but that would probably be different from the current and proposed content. --Boson (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering the lack of input from other editors, do the two of us - in agreement on the issue of removing the paragraph - constitute consensus?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe this article is POV pushing by using the word myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngdrake (talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

How is it POV pushing? I suggest you take a casual glance over google books, if nothing else: https://www.google.com/search?q=stab+in+the+back+myth&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl

The consensus of historians, including Germans, is that it was a myth.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Searching for a certain view point will get you a certain view point. It would be suicidal to a writer's career to write a novel in support of an idea that Hitler supported. Hell its not even leagal to write in some places. You had socalist anti war rallys from the start and uprisings near the end of the war.They forced the current goverment to back down and put up a new goverment that wanted peace. How is this not a stab in the back? At the end of the day its POV pushing, regardless of the fact that the groups that supported this are gone or no longer allowed to speak freely about it. You had large numbers of people who supported this notion including goverment officials. To call it a myth after the fact and after they are dead is POV. This is still a neutral wiki treat it as such. --Youngdrake (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Erm, please read the following encyclopedic entry: [6] EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"I'm reading and searching your source. Most of the hits are from a source book. The one serious discussion it does have says this. The civil truce in politics collapsed when strikes increased in 1916 and 1917. Strikers coupled demands for economic relief with calls for political reform and an end to the war. In april 1917 when radical dissidents formally founded thier own party known as the USPD this new party supported not only the naval mutiny of august 1917 but also random acts of sabotage and strikes that occurred in many cities." Then he goes on to say that this was not important and that it was the armys fault. Yet the civillian imposed goverment was the entity that surrendered. The army went back to a country full of violence and crime. With socalists and communists taking over whole areas. How is that not the cillians letting the army down?--Youngdrake (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're free to question the source's reasoning and conclusion, but that won't change anything here. We accept any WP:RS, even if we don't agree with them. Instead, if we selected only sources we agree with, then that would actually be WP:POV; Wikipedia policy says we cannot do that. However, policy certainly allows you to find other sources that challenge the existing ones. If it's true that "searching for a certain view point will get you a certain view point", then all you have to do to change this article is search for sources that declare this is not a myth. Bring those sources here, and we all must help you improve the article appropriately, per policy. Without those sources, the article must remain as-is. A D Monroe III (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay I'll do that. I'm relatively new here I didn't know that. I'll come back with some sources.--Youngdrake (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

To editor The apostolica: Per WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted, now we discuss. Don't edit war. Removing sourced content needs appropriate explanation and your wordsmithing isn't helpful and may actually violate WP:NPOV. I warned you not to go down this path. If ANI is what you want, we can go that direction. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to call this a myth, because it is believed even today by people. I think it should be renamed "Stab-in-the-back theory" or something similar to be fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.235.217.177 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Relativity is a theory because it's a possible explanation. The Jews didn't cause the Wermacht to lose WWI, so it's not a possible explanation regardless of how many people think it is. Fan death isn't a theory, either, and plenty of people believe that foolishness. PROTIP: try arguing neutrality, not fairness. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

How can you be so sure the Jews didn't cause the wehrmacht to lose wwi? this is only your opinion, and some people hold the opinion that the jews DID cause the wermacht to lose wwi, and it IS a possible explanation. You cannot hold your opinion to be true and ignore all others, that goes against the neutrality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.235.217.177 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Also Fan Death's article is not called Fan Death Myth, while this article is calles a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.235.217.177 (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The only people - in a modern context - who hold the opinion that "jews DID cause the wermacht to lose wwi" are Neo-Nazis. Besides the fact that the Wehrmacht was the German military from 1935 onwards, and not the same institution from before, during, or just after the First World War, it is not an "opinion" that "Jews didn't cause the wehrmacht to lose wwi" it is the historical consensus of trained historians from across the world who have looked at the evidence and found that it was a myth created by the German General Staff. Learn how history works, move away from the Neo-Nazi literature, read some proper peer-reviewed works, and move on.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling the stab-in-the-back claims a "myth" is subjective and NPOV. Also, Stephen Wise, Baruch, Sassoon etc were key advisors on the Versailles Treaty which can be verified from any reputable source.Mustang19 (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The sources make out the "myth" which is why the article is so named. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:POVNAMING. --Boson (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The title follows the scholarship: see 1) Deist, & Feuchtwanger. "The Military Collapse of the German Empire: The Reality Behind the Stab-in-the-Back Myth." War in History (1996): 186-207; 2) Schaller US Crusade in China 1982 writes: "The Germans had their stab-in-the- back legend" 3) Zorn in Journal of Contemporary History 1970 writes: "The 'stab-in-the back' myth and the occupation of the Ruhr intensified the German revolt against the Versailles peace treaty." 4) Frye in The Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 1976 writes: "nationalist myths, such as the Stab-in-the-Back Legend."; 5) Grossmann Gender & History 1991 -writes: "joining right-wing historians in formulating a stab in the back legend"; 6) Ehrmann in Social Research 1947 writes: ": a new version of the stab-in-the-back legend"; 7) Mombauer in Historian 2006 writes: "It fitted neatly with the myth of the 'stab-in-the-back' legend that denied that Germany had lost the war" etc etc (Google scholar has over 2000 examples). Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. The fact that the advisers for the Balfour agreement were Jews is factual and easily verifiable. The sources you cite have nothing to do with refuting this claim. Mustang19 (talk)

Eh? What has that got to do with the Stab in the Back Myth being a myth? DuncanHill (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an example of how you haven't proven the stab in the back to be a myth. There's a simple fix, take out "myth" in the article title. Or replace it with "theory" if you really must. Mustang19 (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let me try to make this simple: You tell me that you think 2+2=4. That's original research, which isn't allowed. Wikipedians don't make the determination that 2+2=4. We look for reliable sources that say that 2+2 does in fact equal 4. That may seem silly to you but that's the rule here.

For what it's worth, I've heard the opinion that the Jews invented fascism and communism as a means to let their tribe integrate into Europe before. Regardless, your brand of antisemitism is ahistorical and therefore a fringe belief. Either way, the sources tell us that 2+2=5 and that's what the article is going to say until we have sources that prove otherwise. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, you claim there are "sources" backing up your antisemitic ideas. However, I do not see you furnishing any such sources to support your ideas. Start with finding authorities that will back up what you are saying, that are allowable under Wikipedia rules, and then move on to trying to push new content. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 16:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Labeling it a "myth" is ridiculous. How can a sentiment be a "myth" ? The Germans felt betrayed by a particular party and they obviously believed they had good reason. It was their political position. You may as well call any party's political position or stance on aggressors a myth.

Blatant POV pushing.

And the editor above is apparently claiming that calling the "stab in the back" anything less than a myth would be "anti-semitic". Beyond absurd, but not surprising. 72.73.121.75 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the sources used in the page, they'll likely educate you effectively if you are confused.Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 00:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"Ok, let me try to make this simple .... [T]he sources tell us that 2+2=5 and that's what the article is going to say until we have sources that prove otherwise."

If it were that simple, you might have a point. The sources are saying something more like "2+2=purple." As is indicated in the unsigned comment above, "myth" is meaningless in this phrase ("Stab-in-the-back myth"). The same is true of "legend" in the corresponding phrase ("Stab-in-the-back legend"). The article's present footnote 1 is an assertion that "myth" is the preferred term; but historian Annika Mombauer apparently prefers to combine the terms—and to throw in quotation marks, for good measure. (Mombauer, as quoted above, by editor Rjensen, refers to "the myth of the 'stab-in-the-back' legend." See http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-165193238.html )

"Myth" and "legend," as employed in these phrases, are dishonest. They are intended to communicate that the view that Germany was stabbed in the back is not to be entertained. By employing "Stab-in-the-back myth" as the article's title and by making unqualified references to the Stab-in-the-back "myth" or "legend," Wikipedia is complicit in the dishonesty.173.49.197.125 (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What dishonesty would that be exactly?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As you can hardly have failed to see, I've already stated that. "Myth" and "legend" are meaningless as components of the phrases "Stab-in-the-back myth" and "Stab-in-the-back legend"; the phrases are intended only as discussion stoppers.173.49.197.125 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules require the editors to follow the established scholarship, Which in all countries agrees that the stab in the bag was a false myth. It also was an influential legend that strengthened movements such as the Nazi party. Apart from a handful of fringe elements, such as the neo-Nazis, no historian seriously maintains that there was a stab in the back. Dishonesty consists in pretending there was such a stab in the back. Rjensen (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If so-called scholars or historians are calling the view that Germany was stabbed in the back a myth or a legend, then they're being dishonest. The view might be insupportable or unfounded—or even a lie or a pretense, as such scholars or historians would be free to demonstrate—but it is not a myth or a legend.173.49.197.125 (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume you have a source that shows the vast majority of historians are wrong to call the story, which was peddled around and gain currency following the war that the German military would have won had it not been for sops at home, is not in fact a myth ... Which appears to be your point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes Google has over 2000 citations calling it a myth or legend: Deist & Feuchtwanger. "The Military Collapse of the German Empire: The Reality Behind the Stab-in-the-Back Myth." War in History (1996): 186-207 surveys the scholarship in several countries and concludes that it is a myth. He does not find a single serious scholar who thinks otherwise. Rjensen (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor EnigmaMcmxc: You wrote the following:

I assume you have a source that shows the vast majority of historians are wrong to call the story, which was peddled around and gain currency following the war that the German military would have won had it not been for sops at home, is not in fact a myth ....

Obviously, you misworded that. You intended to say, "I assume you have a source that shows the vast majority of historians are wrong to call the story ... a myth."

Your assumption is incorrect. If you would take a moment to try to understand what is being said by me and the unsigned commenter above, you would see that we're saying that the use of "myth" or "legend" in this context is illegitimate. We're speaking of the meaning of those words.173.49.197.125 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor Rjensen: I say to you what I have just said, above, to editor EnigmaMcmxc. This is a question of the proper use of "myth" or "legend." The number of scholars, historians, or what-have-you misusing those terms is irrelevant.173.49.197.125 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite my mis-wording in a hasty reply, you have at least clarified your position. Arguing semantics is irrelevant considering "myth" and "legend" have become the accepted terminology to discuss the topic.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Having just given the article a quick read—and having very-limited knowledge of technical aspects of Wikipedia—I suggest the following:

1—Title of article be changed to "Stab-in-the-back" (yes, hyphenated).

2—Redirects be created for:

a—Stab-in-the-back legend

b—Stab-in-the-back myth

c—Dolchstoßlegende

d—Dolchstoß

3—Opening sentence be reworded.

Present opening sentence:

The stab-in-the-back myth (Dolchstoßlegende) is the notion, widely believed in right-wing circles in Germany after 1918, that the German Army did not lose World War I but was instead betrayed by the civilians on the home front, especially the republicans who overthrew the monarchy.

Suggested rewording:

The stab-in-the-back—or, in German, Dolchstoß—was the alleged betrayal of the Germany Army in World War I. In a view widely held in Germany's right-wing circles after 1918, the army did not lose the war but was instead betrayed by home-front civilians, especially the republicans who overthrew the monarchy.

4—Rewording of some other sentences or passages. I'll detail this in a separate comment, to follow the present one.173.49.197.125 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Continuing:

Present sentence:

When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they made the legend an integral part of their official history of the 1920s, portraying the Weimar Republic as the work of the "November criminals" who used the stab in the back to seize power while betraying the nation.

Suggested revision:

When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they made the stab-in-the-back an integral part of their official history of the 1920s. They portrayed the Weimar Republic as the work of the November criminals, who, they said, had seized power while betraying the nation.

Present sentence:

Scholars inside and outside Germany unanimously reject the notion, pointing out the German army was out of reserves and was being overwhelmed in late 1918.

Suggested revision:

Inside and outside Germany, the stab-in-the-back is unanimously disbelieved in by scholars, who speak of the Dolchstoßlegende, the stab-in-the-back legend or myth. A 1996 survey of scholarship in several countries found no creditable scholar who believed in the betrayal. [ADD FOOTNOTE TO DEIST & FEUCHTWANGER, AS CITED ABOVE, BY EDITOR RJENSEN]

To be continued.173.49.197.125 (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Continuing:

Present passage in second paragraph of subsection headed "Post-war reactions and reflections":

In the West, Germany had had successes with the Spring Offensive. Contributing to the Dolchstoßlegende, its failure was blamed on strikes in the arms industry at a critical moment of the offensive, leaving soldiers without an adequate supply of materiel.

Suggested revision:

In the West, Germany had had successes with the Spring Offensive; its failure was blamed on arms-industry strikes that came at a critical moment of the offensive and left soldiers without an adequate supply of materiel.

Present passage in final paragraph of subsection headed "Post-war reactions and reflections":

Richard M. Hunt argues in his 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.

Suggested revision:

In a 1958 article, Richard M. Hunt argued that belief in the stab-in-the-back was irrational, commanding the force of irrefutable emotional convictions for millions of Germans. Behind the belief, Hunt suggested, was a sense of communal shame, not for causing the war but for losing it.

Sentence in section headed "Origins":

Ludendorff replied with his list of excuses, including that the home front failed the army.

Suggested revision:

Ludendorff replied with a list of reasons—or excuses—including that the home front had failed the army.

Sentence in section headed "Origins":

The reviews in the German press that grossly misrepresented general Frederick Barton Maurice's book, The Last Four Months, also contributed to the creation of this myth.

Suggested revision:

German press reviews that grossly misrepresented general Frederick Barton Maurice's book, The Last Four Months, contributed to belief in the stab-in-the-back.

Sentence in section headed "Origins":

As such the book offered one of the earliest published versions of the stab-in-the-back legend.

Suggested revision:

The book thus offered one of the earliest published versions of the stab-in-the-back.

Present sentence in section headed "Origins":

It was particularly this testimony of Hindenburg that led to the wide spread of the Dolchstoßlegende in post-World War I Germany.

Suggested revision:

It was particularly this testimony of Hindenburg that led to widespread belief in the Dolchstoß in post-World War I Germany.

Sentence in section headed "Origins":

Richard Steigmann-Gall says that the stab-in-the-back legend traces back to a sermon preached on February 3, 1918, by Protestant Court Chaplain Bruno Doehring, six months before the war had even ended.

Suggested revision:

Richard Steigmann-Gall finds the earliest allegation of a stab-in-the-back in a sermon preached on February 3, 1918, by Protestant Court Chaplain Bruno Doehring, six months before the war had even ended.

Sentence in section headed "Origins":

Even provisional President Friedrich Ebert contributed to the myth when he saluted returning veterans with the oration that "no enemy has vanquished you" (kein Feind hat euch überwunden!) and "they returned undefeated from the battlefield" (sie sind vom Schlachtfeld unbesiegt zurückgekehrt) on November 10, 1918.

Suggested revision:

Provisional President Friedrich Ebert contributed to belief in the Dolchstoß when he saluted returning veterans with the oration that "no enemy has vanquished you" (kein Feind hat euch überwunden!) and "they returned undefeated from the battlefield" (sie sind vom Schlachtfeld unbesiegt zurückgekehrt) on November 10, 1918.

If I were to read the article again, I might come up with a few other suggestions; and probably, other Wikipedia articles include sentences that have to do with the stab-in-the-back and should be revised. In the "World War I" section of Adolf Hitler, for example, is the following:

Like other German nationalists, he believed the Dolchstoßlegende (stab-in-the-back myth), which claimed that the German army, "undefeated in the field", had been "stabbed in the back" on the home front by civilian leaders and Marxists, later dubbed the "November criminals".

That should be changed to:

Like other German nationalists, he believed in the stab-in-the-back, the alleged betrayal of the German army, "undefeated in the field", by home-front civilian leaders and Marxists, later dubbed the "November criminals".

I'll add that the present article has statements that should be marked "citation needed."173.49.197.125 (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The spring offensive was a major disaster for Germany-- it lost its best remaining combat echelons because the Allies figured out how to handle it-- fall back 10 or 20 miles, then counterattack. The Germans had now used up all their reserves and the Americans were arriving at the rate of 10,000 per day-- 70,000 per week of fresh, well-trained, energetic and enthusiastic troops who were bigger and taller than the Germans and well fed well fed and in good health. The German soldiers were on short rations and increasingly outnumbered. Almost all the German officers and noncoms who had started the war back in 1914 were gone. The German army had lost its faith in the Kaiser (Hindenburg took a poll of his top 40 generals and field marshals and only one supported the Kaiser in October 1918.) When the Allies made their big push starting in September, it was one disaster after another for the German army. All its allies had surrendered one by one. The German Navy mutinied and refused to fight. Rjensen (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What is your point? I haven't offered any remarks about the Spring Offensive. I simply reworded a sentence, i.e., a sentence that's already in the article, a sentence that has to do with how those who believed in the stab-in-the-back spoke of the Spring Offensive. You're not listening.173.49.197.125 (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Then why is the spring offensive in there??? The someone claim it was part of the myth? Rjensen (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I shall be blunt: Your post seems to me hardly worthy of a response, so thoroughly does it depart from the spirit of discussion. The article's statement about the Spring Offensive lacks a footnote, as much of the article lacks footnotes. Your triple question-mark notwithstanding, it is not my place to discuss "why" the statement is in the article—or why any similar piece of information is in the article. That is not the subject to which I have chosen to give some of my time, which I'll appreciate your not wasting. If you happen to be interested, you'll find that Adolf Hitler discussed the munitions strike in Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 7 ( http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/meinkampf/v1c7.htm ); but contrary to the statement in the Wikipedia article, he said the strike's effect was on military morale, not on military supply. Whether the strike and its supposed effect on the Spring Offensive were spoken of by anyone else in "right-wing circles," to use the vague term from the Wikipedia article's opening sentence, I don't know. That's the sort of thing that should be in a Wikipedia article like this—but of course, Wikipedia always disappoints. In case you're interested, the Mein Kampf statement about the munitions strike is discussed on page 13 of Hitler's Berlin, written by Thomas Friedrich and published in 2012. See https://books.google.com/books?id=rBK0W9kGn4cC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%22Mein+Kampf%22+%22munitions+strike%22&source=bl&ots=PhN5e2d5A7&sig=DIIeUqMmV6FmAbyWps_c86NI0mI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9cvKVNH-EseMNpWWgvgP&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Mein%20Kampf%22%20%22munitions%20strike%22&f=false

My concern here is to discuss the changes and revisions I proposed above. To focus the discussion on those, I will soon repost my suggestions, as a separate talk-page section, below.173.49.197.125 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I will be even blunter: you do not have the social skills to interact with your fellow editors with the result that you are defeating your own purpose and the purpose of the article. If you do not understand the issue on the spring offensive okay then leave it out. Try to avoid talking about material when you have no idea what it means.Rjensen (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what it means? I have news for you: I don't even know what it is. I first heard of the Spring Offensive about eighteen hours ago, when I read through the article. It is not my place to "leave it out"; I didn't put it in there. If you think the statement about it shouldn't be in the article, then discuss that with someone who cares. I haven't said anything substantive about the Spring Offensive. As you're unwilling to recognize, I've simply suggested rewording of a sentence that's already in the article, a sentence to which, apparently, you gave no attention until I mentioned it.173.49.197.125 (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor 173.49.197.125: I'll do one better: Mustang19 started this discussion and got blocked for antisemitism and I don't see why anyone is wasting time talking to you. I suspect some type of puppetry. You're not here to write an encyclopedia. You're a partisan trying to slowly re-write history. This will not be allowed. You're not going to win converts and you're not going to make your desired changes so give up. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have comments about the revisions I've suggested, in the talk-page section below, I'll be pleased to read them.173.49.197.125 (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The following is a restatement of changes I suggested in the previous talk-page section, headed "NPOV."

Suggestion 1: Title of article be changed to "Stab-in-the-back"

Suggestion 2: Redirects be created for

a—Stab-in-the-back legend

b—Stab-in-the-back myth

c—Dolchstoßlegende

d—Dolchstoß

Suggestion 3: Opening sentence be reworded

Present opening sentence:

The stab-in-the-back myth (Dolchstoßlegende) is the notion, widely believed in right-wing circles in Germany after 1918, that the German Army did not lose World War I but was instead betrayed by the civilians on the home front, especially the republicans who overthrew the monarchy.

Suggested rewording:

The stab-in-the-back—or, in German, Dolchstoß—was the alleged betrayal of the Germany Army in World War I. In a view widely held in Germany's right-wing circles after 1918, the army did not lose the war but was instead betrayed by home-front civilians, especially the republicans who overthrew the monarchy.

Suggestion 4.1: Revision of sentence in introduction

Present sentence:

When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they made the legend an integral part of their official history of the 1920s, portraying the Weimar Republic as the work of the "November criminals" who used the stab in the back to seize power while betraying the nation.

Suggested revision:

When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they made the stab-in-the-back an integral part of their official history of the 1920s. They portrayed the Weimar Republic as the work of the November criminals, who, they said, had seized power while betraying the nation.

Suggestion 4.2: Revision of sentence in introduction

Present sentence:

Scholars inside and outside Germany unanimously reject the notion, pointing out the German army was out of reserves and was being overwhelmed in late 1918.

Suggested revision:

Inside and outside Germany, the stab-in-the-back is unanimously disbelieved in by scholars, who speak of the Dolchstoßlegende, the stab-in-the-back legend or myth. A 1996 survey of scholarship in several countries found no creditable scholar who believed in the betrayal. [ADD FOOTNOTE TO DEIST & FEUCHTWANGER, AS CITED ABOVE, IN TALK-PAGE SECTION "NPOV," BY EDITOR RJENSEN]

Suggestion 5.1: Revision of passage in second paragraph of article's subsection headed "Post-war reactions and reflections"

Present passage:

In the West, Germany had had successes with the Spring Offensive. Contributing to the Dolchstoßlegende, its failure was blamed on strikes in the arms industry at a critical moment of the offensive, leaving soldiers without an adequate supply of materiel.

Suggested revision:

In the West, Germany had had successes with the Spring Offensive; its failure was blamed on arms-industry strikes that came at a critical moment of the offensive and left soldiers without an adequate supply of materiel.

Suggestion 5.2: Revision of passage in final paragraph of subsection headed "Post-war reactions and reflections"

Present passage:

Richard M. Hunt argues in his 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.

Suggested revision:

In a 1958 article, Richard M. Hunt argued that belief in the stab-in-the-back was irrational, commanding the force of irrefutable emotional convictions for millions of Germans. Behind the belief, Hunt suggested, was a sense of communal shame, not for causing the war but for losing it.

Suggestion 6.1: Revision of sentence in article's section headed "Origins"

Present sentence:

Ludendorff replied with his list of excuses, including that the home front failed the army.

Suggested revision:

Ludendorff replied with a list of reasons—or excuses—including that the home front had failed the army.

Suggestion 6.2: Revision of sentence in section headed "Origins"

Present sentence:

The reviews in the German press that grossly misrepresented general Frederick Barton Maurice's book, The Last Four Months, also contributed to the creation of this myth.

Suggested revision:

German press reviews that grossly misrepresented general Frederick Barton Maurice's book, The Last Four Months, contributed to belief in the stab-in-the-back.

Suggestion 6.3: Revision of sentence in section headed "Origins"

Present sentence:

As such the book offered one of the earliest published versions of the stab-in-the-back legend.

Suggested revision:

The book thus offered one of the earliest published versions of the stab-in-the-back.

Suggestion 6.4: Revision of sentence in section headed "Origins"

Present sentence:

It was particularly this testimony of Hindenburg that led to the wide spread of the Dolchstoßlegende in post-World War I Germany.

Suggested revision:

It was particularly this testimony of Hindenburg that led to widespread belief in the Dolchstoß in post-World War I Germany.

Suggestion 6.5: Revision of sentence in section headed "Origins"

Present sentence:

Richard Steigmann-Gall says that the stab-in-the-back legend traces back to a sermon preached on February 3, 1918, by Protestant Court Chaplain Bruno Doehring, six months before the war had even ended.

Suggested revision:

Richard Steigmann-Gall finds the earliest allegation of a stab-in-the-back in a sermon preached on February 3, 1918, by Protestant Court Chaplain Bruno Doehring, six months before the war had even ended.

Suggestion 6.6: Revision of sentence in section headed "Origins"

Present sentence:

Even provisional President Friedrich Ebert contributed to the myth when he saluted returning veterans with the oration that "no enemy has vanquished you" (kein Feind hat euch überwunden!) and "they returned undefeated from the battlefield" (sie sind vom Schlachtfeld unbesiegt zurückgekehrt) on November 10, 1918.

Suggested revision:

Provisional President Friedrich Ebert contributed to belief in the Dolchstoß when he saluted returning veterans with the oration that "no enemy has vanquished you" (kein Feind hat euch überwunden!) and "they returned undefeated from the battlefield" (sie sind vom Schlachtfeld unbesiegt zurückgekehrt) on November 10, 1918.

As I stated in the previous talk-page section, headed "NPOV," the preceding are the suggestions I was prompted to make after a quick read through the article; if I were to read it again, I might come up with additional suggestions. The article could use "citation needed" in several places, including some of the sentences I've just treated. Also, there are probably a number of other Wikipedia articles with sentences that have to do with the stab-in-the-back and that should be revised. In the "World War I" section of Adolf Hitler, for example, is the following:

Like other German nationalists, he believed the Dolchstoßlegende (stab-in-the-back myth), which claimed that the German army, "undefeated in the field", had been "stabbed in the back" on the home front by civilian leaders and Marxists, later dubbed the "November criminals".

That should be changed to:

Like other German nationalists, he believed in the stab-in-the-back, the alleged betrayal of the German army, "undefeated in the field", by home-front civilian leaders and Marxists, later dubbed the "November criminals".

Obviously, the above numbering of my suggestions is intended to facilitate discussion of them, should anyone be inclined to discuss them.173.49.197.125 (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose ahistorical. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

My Suggestion 3 was the following revision of the article's opening sentence:

The stab-in-the-back—or, in German, Dolchstoß—was the alleged betrayal of the Germany Army in World War I. In a view widely held in Germany's right-wing circles after 1918, the army did not lose the war but was instead betrayed by home-front civilians, especially the republicans who overthrew the monarchy.

How is that ahistorical?173.49.197.125 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page explain how the war ended?

The German forces were more efficient than those of the Triple Entente. It cost significantly less for the Germans to kill a soldier of the Triple Entente, than the other way around. Germany could have fought on longer than they did, but the German officers realized it was a lost cause and ordered the soldiers to put down their weapons. This was not a coordinated thing. That makes it quite interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

All of which is the stab in the back myth. The German military lost the war during the Spring Offensive and were close to collapse due to the Allied counterattacks, coupled with an increasing desertion rate and the collapse of the Home Front.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an odd declaration. You named the reason: "the collapse of the Home Front". That is what they call the stab in the back. There were still millions of soldiers that were free to go home because the Home Front had become divided by socialists on one side and nationalists on the other. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stab-in-the-back myth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 20:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Does not meet the criterion.	Fail
(c) (original research)	Previous concerns on talk. Sourcing needs to be explicit per above.	Don't know

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	I am quick-failing this nom for two reasons: 1) this article fails to meet criterion 2b, one of our most important indicators of GA status, and 2) previous concerns about original research appear on the talk page, making adherence to criterion 2b of the highest importance. Please add inline sources and re-nominate. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional notes

I would like to propose an edit, to have this article show it as being a part of a series on WWI, rather than antisemitism. While there are elements of antisemitism in the "Dolchstoßlegende", it wasn't the main focus of the "myth" until the Nazi Party used it in their propaganda. There were multitudes of soldiers who felt betrayed by their government without the Jewish religion ever having entered their minds.

Furthermore the "Dolchstoßlegende" is primarily about how some people (primarily combatants) viewed the end of the war. I find that making this article primarily part of a series on antisemitism, rather than WWI, as logical as making the Holocaust primarily a part of a series on WWII, rather than antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.245.26.215 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to take your suggestion to the series template talkpage to discuss this articles removal from that template. Although it should be noted that the view from when this myth spawned was that Jewish people had played a role in what happened.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The stab-in-the-back accusation was originally aimed at generally "leftist" elements. I'm suspicious of the notion Jews were really the primary target from the start and think it's possible that an anachronistic view of history is making this article misleading by overemphasizing them as an initial target, especially by the select use of cartoons here. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The cartoon was a single example, but there is a ton of sources that note that Jews - as well as those who were on the left - were the target of the myth since its inception: "Stab+in+the+back"+"jew"&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

By filtering on "Jews" in your search in the first place, you are not properly addressing whether they were the primary target with respect to the totality of the direct post-war literature, rather than a secondary one (as a result of their association with left-wing politics). Only secondary sources that give proper overviews can answer this question. -- Dissident (Talk) 12:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

If you looked at the results, rather than the key word search, you will find secondary sources that address the very issue with one indicating that elements of the myth and blaming of Jews started even before the war ended.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

These actual secondary sources must be explicitly mentioned and determined to be reliable. In addition, adding "Jews" as part of any search is obviously going to create an unacceptable bias. The kind of sources I'd like to see are those like the Boris Barth book, whose subject is actually the stab-in-the-back myth, rather than those that are about anti-Jewish propaganda and only bring up the myth as an example. -- Dissident (Talk) 14:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Funny, I can see a number of reliable secondary sources, via that link and search results, that discuss the subject and state exactly what you are calling for: Jews were part of the target audience since 1919. So why are we shifting the goalposts on this exactly, and calling for a more stricter use on sources than anywhere else on the wikiEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stab-in-the-back myth/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

My understanding of the cause of German defeat in WWI differs from the Wikipedia article headed "stab-in-the-back legend". By 1916 British opinion, and possibly French as well, was that the war could not be won without bringing USA into it on the allied side. On the other hand, America was not inclined to involve itself in the struggle. On this basis, Jewish financiers close to the British ministry (they funded the British government) agreed to do their best to bring America in, with the quid pro quo of unstinting British support for the return of the Jews to their homeland. The British part of this contract was secured as well as may be by the publication of the Balfour Declaration. The Jewish part was achieved by financiers in New York (Kuen Loeb is mentioned) obtaining a consensus for war amongst the ruling elite in Washington. A part of the evidence for all this was revealed at a Sanhedrin in Belgium (Brussels?) in about 1923 which came to German attention. It had been the intention of the parties once the war was won, to destroy Germany's ability to recover quickly so far as possible, and this was to be achieved by onerous terms in the peace treaty. The treaty terms seem to reveal a recognition that Germany would probably discover the cause of American entry into the war and its consequent defeat. All of this together was said to be the 'stab in the back.' Hardly any of it, except the onerous treaty terms, appears in this article. Part of the evidence in support is the subsequent appalling attack on the Jews by Hitler and his party. These people were the most capable and productive people in the country. They had been living there for donkey's years, responding to a 19th century invitation that merely required them to learn German and respect German traditions to ensure they were full equal citizens. They decorated German life and ensured the country's arts and sciences led the world. It is a bizarre thing for a national leader to destroy the most productive and capable part of his people. AncienMan (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Substituted at 23:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed the following text. It looks like original research to me, and much of it is alternate-historical speculation. The request for a source went unmet for some time.

Some believe that the Allied policy of unconditional surrender in World War II was, in part, a response to the Dolchstosslegende. {{fact}} However, this ignores other dynamics of the policy, namely that the United States and the United Kingdom were concerned what would happen if they did not show solidarity with the Soviets and Stalin were to make a separate peace with Germany. Additionally, the decision for unconditional surrender was also an important step for the Allies to rally the public and commit them to the cause.

Still, in light of the situation that had developed in Germany after the World War I armistice, the concept of unconditional surrender was rather popular during World War II, especially amidst anti-German sentiment and the interpretation that the Germans needed to be "taught a lesson" in order to end perceptions of the German Army's invincibility.

In 1944, if Count Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators had succeeded in killing Hitler and ousting the Nazi government, there may have been a great deal of public pressure for the Allies to reverse such terms. Nevertheless, unconditional surrender and the Dolchstosslegende can be used to, at least partially, explain why the plot and others like it received no coordinated help from the Allies.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert A West (talk • contribs) 2006-08-11

This is a reasonable assertion and should not have been edited out. However here is some documentation anyway: "those Germans — and particularly those German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country." Michael Balfour, "Another Look at 'Unconditional Surrender'", International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–), Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. 719–736 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missaeagle (talk • contribs) 06:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The quote, as given by William Manchester on p. 432 of "The Arms of Krupp," is "The Generalstab [general staff] was stabbed in the back!"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.123.71 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-01

And? The phrase didn't start with Manchester, it had been in use for decades by then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Der Dolchstoß is cited as an important factor in Adolf Hitler's later rise to power, as the Nazi Party grew its original political base largely from embittered World War I veterans"

Be careful with such statement unless you dont prove it. There are different souces showing who supported Hitler most. It werent classical conservatives. The "new" middle class was his main support.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.57.2.107 (talk • contribs) 2008-10-12

Let's not give the impression that the basic validity/existence of the article's subject is up for discussion. It isn't and creating a thread like this is pure trolling. If anybody wants to discuss anything legitimately arising from this then please start another thread under a sensible title.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How do you explain the fact that Britain dropped leaflets about the Balfour Declaration into jewish communities in Germany for the express purpose of inciting them to commit treason against Germany? Balfour was an obvious quid pro quo in which the jews got Palestine in exchange for supporting Britain in WWI. 72.193.159.54 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC) A reliable source, if any, for your claims? Norvo (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC) He already said. The source is his ass. Let's not indulge such a ludicrous attempt to justify Nazi aggression any further. I'm rolling this up. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Here's a reliable jewish source admitting that the intent of the Balfour Declaration was to get Jewish support for Britain in WWI. Primarily for the purpose of getting the US into the war on Britain's side, through disproportionate jewish influence on media and public opinion, but there is no reason to think the effect would be limited to American jews. https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-britain-s-true-motivation-behind-the-balfour-declaration-1.5462518 72.193.159.54 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC) In the US and Germany the rich & powerful Jews in banking and media (eg NY Times) opposed Zionism. They did not approve of the Balfour declaration. Rjensen (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The literal translation of "Dolchstoßlegende" would be "dagger stab myth" or "stabbed by dagger myth" which is rather different from "in the back" although it usually refers to a backstab scenario.

I don't quite see, why we shouldn't provide a literal translation, in particular since it differs from the English term and that might not be obvious for people without any German knowledge/arbitrary readers. Moreover it seems rather weird to me to reserve space for a rather lengthy footnote on myth vs legend with regard to translation but at the same time not providing the actual complete literal translation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: What you say about the translation is true, but I don't see how it adds anything to the article to include it here. Except for language nerds (like myself), it's completely uninteresting and unhelpful for understanding the concept. For that matter, the German pronunciation is irrelevant to almost everyone reading the article, the German expression can be found in the Language sidebar and so is not necessary either, and the note about Legende vs. myth is of no interest to anyone but German speakers. It's a given that stab-in-the-back myth is the common name in English, or the article would not be entitled as it is; it's not necessary to justify that the article title is a non-literal translation. In my view, the first sentence should read:

The stab-in-the-back myth is the notion, widely believed and promulgated in right-wing circles in Germany after 1918, that the German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield but was instead betrayed by the civilians on the home front, especially the republicans who overthrew the Hohenzollern monarchy in the German Revolution of 1918–19.

Note also the verb tenses: is the notion, but [was] believed and [was] promulgated. Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I agree that literal translation is just a minor sidenote and has no bearing on the history and meaning of the technical term. Nevertheless though not important it is beneficial to readers aside from being an information of interest for languahe nerds, it also helps to avoid misunderstandings, that is people falsely assuming Doclstoßlegende would literally translate to stab in the back myth and vice versa.

In any case I think the information should be provided. However in doubt I'd leave the decision to the primary maintainer/authors of the article. If they strongly feel of not having that info in the lead I'm not going to block that.

Also another way to provide the information without unnecessarily "bloating" or extending the lead sentence might be to move it into a footnote.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

But stab-in-the-back myth does translate into Dolchstoßlegende; that is the proper translation in both directions. This article is not the proper place for a discussion of basic translation technique and why literal translation doesn’t work. If you want to put it in a footnote I wouldn’t object, but as is, it interrupts the flow of the defining sentence with words of interest to very few. Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not fixed. How putting images next to titles instead of below them is helping? Even if they refer to both the section above and the section below, it ruins the article. Check this squished prose for example.--Lana Ryback (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The images are related to both the section immediately above, and the section below. Where they are is appropriate and looks good. Perhaps when you've been editing for more than 8 days you might have a better feel for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the images don't "cut the title in the middle", the top of the images is precisely even with the title. In the real world, in magazines, newspapers and books, this is very frequently done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect November criminals. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 22#November criminals until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 04:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I added commas after the years in the full dates in the article in order to conform with MOS:DATECOMMA but was reverted by Beyond My Ken. I am wondering why that is. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Because the commas are not necessary, and MOS is not mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a central consensus to use the commas and "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Is there a reason why this might be an exceptional circumstance to which WP:IAR might apply? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

How about we edit to improve articles, and not edit to blindly follow guidelines which -- in many case -- are actually misguided. Your changes did not improve the article, and I deleted them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. Why would the inclusion of the commas be a bad thing? And how would it constitute an exceptional circumstance to which WP:IAR might apply? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The article asserts that the stab-in-the-back myth reminded Germans thought of Wagner's opera Goetterdaemmerung. Yet I find no evidence for that assertion in German sources. The image of Siegfried stabbed in the back by Hagen comes from the Nibelungenlied, which became popular decades before Wagner wrote his opera. Its plot was taught in schools and so widely known that references like the words Nibelungentreue and tarnen that were not used by Wagner were used for PR purposes during WW1. The Anglosphere associates Siegfried primarily with Wagner, but Germans don't. You could quote Hindenburg's Out of Life if you want a better source: "Just as Siegfried fell to the treacherous spear of terrible Hagen, so did our exhausted front line collapse. They tried in vain to draw new life from the dried-up well spring of the home front". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.156.94 (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Could it be changed to a reference to the Niebelungelied instead, then`Sjö (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the information because (1) it is reliably sourced, and (2) the IP's removal is based on their own personal investigation, which is a violation of WP:Original research. (3) The reference to the "Anglosphere" puts this into the realm of ethnic/nationalistic PoV editing, and (4) the reference to what Germans do and don't associate with Siegfried is, again, OR.

The information should not be removed again without a consensus in this discussion to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have the book cited, which was written by a well-respected historian, J. M. Roberts. Roberts writes: "In the music-drama Götterdämmerung, Wagner's hero, Siegfried, is murdered by a spear thrust into his back by his enemy, Hagen. The image was evocative for many German patriots." That's very clear, and does not support a change to "Niebelungelied". Robert was writing, c.1999, of Germany in 1918, when the stab-in-the-back myth was first promulgated. A person living in Germany in 2021, over a hundred years later, cannot by their experience of contemporary Germans, speak for what Germans may or may not have found evocative back then. It takes a historian and suitable research to determine that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• In their introduction to their book The Stab-in-the-Back Myth and the Fall of the Weimar Republic, the authors, Vascik and Sadler, write of Germany in 1918: "Across society in endless permutations, people came to wonder whether—as Hagen in Wagner’s Götterdämmerung had stabbed Siegfried in the back—their own individual hopes had somehow been similarly betrayed." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• In this essay, the author and journalist Kevin Baker writes:

  "Ludendorff’s eyes lit up, and he leapt upon the phrase like a dog on a bone," wrote Hindenburg biographer John Wheeler-Bennett. "'Stabbed in the back?' he repeated. 'Yes, that’s it exactly. We were stabbed in the back.'"

  Ludendorff’s enthusiasm was understandable, for, as he must have known, the phrase already had great resonance in Germany. The word dolchstoss – "dagger thrust" – had been popularized almost fifty years before in Wagner’s Götterdämmerung. After swallowing a potion that causes him to reveal a shocking truth, the invincible Teutonic hero, Siegfried, is fatally stabbed in the back by Hagen, son of the archvillain, Alberich.

  Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I was wrong to delete a paragraph I disagree with. But your source is not very accurate, Beyond My Ken. The word "dolchstoss" does not appear anywhere in the Goetterdaemmerung's libretto. Also note that Wagner's Siegfried is a somewhat foolish and less heroic character than Siegfried in the Goetterdaemmerung. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.156.94 (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The source does not claim that "dolchstoss" appears in the libretto. It says that the word was popularized by the opera. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken Why did you revert this [7]? It is the WP:MOS to add commas after years in a sentence – not only is it compliant with the MOS, but it's objectively grammatically correct. chri. (talk | contribs) 02:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC) 02:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it reads better without it. Remember, MoS is a guideline and is not mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's your subjective interpretation. It is *objectively grammatically correct* to add a comma after a year. Wikipedia isn't a place for your personal writing and reading tastes. It baffles me this is a dispute, but the fact is, what reads the best is what is grammatically correct. chri. (talk | contribs) 03:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "objectively grammatically correct", no matter what your fourth-grade teacher told you. If it reads better without it, leave it out. In this case, the added pause indicated by the comma is disruptive and is not needed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/commas-in-dates/, https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/commas/extended_rules_for_commas.html, https://www.businessinsider.com/a-guide-to-proper-comma-use-2013-9?op=1#8-use-a-comma-to-separate-the-elements-in-a-full-date-weekday-month-and-day-and-year-also-separate-a-combination-of-those-elements-from-the-rest-of-the-sentence-with-commas-8 – can you give me a source demonstrating why you don't need to add a comma after a year? Because it is grammatically correct, whether you like it or not. No matter how "disruptive" you find it commas are always added after a year in a full date. There's a reason you'll be corrected if you type "On February 22, 2021 I went to the store" into anything with a grammar checker. Plus, if the manual of style is "just a guideline," could the same not apply to WP:HOAX, which is also "just a guideline?" There's a reason guidelines exist, and there's no reason why WP:IAR should apply here. chri. (talk | contribs) 14:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I am a professional writer with over 30 years experience in technical and professional topics published in both popular and technical press. The blog of a prescriptivist grammar crutch application doesn't impress me much as a source, nor does Business Insider. But I'm always willing to help a fellow editor: For the premise that grammar should never interfere with clear writing, see, e.g., The Elements of Style, by Strunk & White. Neither WP:GUIDELINES not WP:IAR is the operative principle here. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD are. You made a change, you were reverted, you came here to discuss, and the only one making a case for the comma is you. Generally speaking, a single comma is not worth making a stand for but if consensus is that it is not needed, it is not needed. I hope that helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point – I think you're right. Sorry for being a nuisance. chri. (talk | contribs) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with chri and don't believe that there is any unnecessary pause caused by this comma. Practically all style guides recommend the use of a comma in this instance, perhaps for purposes of clarity. I am deeply saddened by its removal. Snuish (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Snuish2 Geez, did you really think it was necessary and appropriate to come here, to the talk page of an article you've never edited [8] to register your disagreement with me over a minor MoS matter, simply because we had a dispute on Talk:Zionism#Edit Request - Removal of Unreliable Source? You got what you wanted there, after all. Following another editor around in this manner could be construed as WP:HOUNDING, so if you were thinking of doing some more of it. I'd reconsider. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow! Have you heard of WP:BITE? I've never edited most of the articles on Wikipedia and am bound to run into editors more than once. If you really think an isolated instance like this could be construed as hounding, you're welcome to report it. I would love to see how that report turns out. One would think I'd pick something you've edited more recently if I was hounding you. Snuish (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Sure. A complete coincidence. No doubt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW you're not a newbie - just the fact that you know about WP:BITE is a pretty damn good indication that you're not. In any case, you've got 3 months on this account, and 6 months on your previous one, plenty of time to know the basics, like don't follow an editor around who you're in a dispute with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not take our quickly resolved disagreement personally--it seems rather clear you did. Less hostility is useful all around. Snuish (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it didn't bother me in the least. What bothered me was seeing you here -- where you've never been before -- immediately after that dispute. If you're not following me around, fine, we don't have a problem; if you intended to follow me around, don't, your gig is blown; and if you follow me around anyway, rest assured that I will not take being HOUNDED lying down. That's a lesson I learned a long time ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That history explains your reaction. Okay. I assure you that I certainly don't have the time required to make bugging people on Wikipedia the least bit entertaining. I jest, but "we don't have a problem" given your post above. Snuish (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

And my opinion about this comma still stands. Snuish (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

To nip off an incipient edit war, I am opening this discussion. I hope the IP editor sees this since they can't be pinged but also inviting @Beyond My Ken: and @Smuckola:. I don't believe this needs any sort of formal process. In my reading, the "worldwide" version does read better but does not accurately reflect the sources given for the text. Do we really know what the historians in Burkina Faso or Sri Lanka think of Nazi historiography? I'm guessing no and further that no-one thinks it's necessary or productive to find out. The "inside and outside of Germany" version better reflects this and also emphasizes that it is not merely historians from Germany's former enemies that reject the myth. Please feel free to add any comments. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Worldwide" misses the point, which is not so much that historians all over the world reject the myth, but that it is rejected both by German and non-German historians. That's a much stronger point than is made by "worldwide", regardless of whether it reads better or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"Following the passage of the Reichstag Peace Resolution, the Army pressured the Emperor to remove Reich Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg and replace him with weak and relatively unknown figures (Georg Michaelis and Georg von Hertling) who were de facto puppets of Ludendorff."

But according to the article Reichstag Peace Resolution, the resolution "was passed five days after Georg Michaelis was appointed Reich Chancellor". Hence, the account given by that article and the one given by this article are incompatible. Which is correct? Harfarhs (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

We must explain the real military-economic events, which caused the German defeat. The Germans lost the war due to the economic collapse and food cisis. In the reality , the German defeat based on the fact, that the UK get super massive American (mostly private) loans to avoid economic collapse, and due to the American loans, the major ENTENTE countries were able to hold the gold standard for their currency, thus they avoided hyper inflation and economic collapse in the middle of the war. More information about it: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_finance_great_britain_and_ireland --Longsars (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

While the language of Putin's address is somewhat reminiscent of this myth, none of the sources cited actually draw that parallel. Is this an appropriate inclusion? 2600:1014:B1AE:C854:718F:D08A:2B32:D3EA (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. He's just employing the same idiom (which is a common one across multiple languages) which happened to have been adopted for this conspiracy theory. WP Ludicer (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Germany being a military dictatorship even though there are sources that make the claim. But I haven’t found any that back it up solidly and can rebut the arguments against it that are shown in the actions of the Imperial Reichstag and the chancellor during the war (e.g. the concessions made by the OHL in the Auxiliary Services Act and the passage of the Reichstag Peace Resolution). Three of the most known historians of the era ignore or speak against the dictatorship claim:

Heinrich August Winkler's Der Lange Weg nach Westen Vol. 1 doesn’t mention of a military dictatorship during WWI. Even Frank Tipton, cited in this article in support of a dictatorship, says the exact opposite: "some historians have labeled [it] a military dictatorship", then adds a few paragraphs later: "Nevertheless, although not a dictator, in 1917 and 1918 Ludendorff was unquestionably the most powerful man in Germany." He says nothing about the last 2 chancellors being "puppets". Thomas Nipperdey wrote in Deutsche Geschichte 1866–1918, Band II: Machstaat vor der Demokratie: "Nevertheless, it is misleading to characterize the extraordinary power of the OHL and Ludendorff, especially after the fall of Bethmann Hollweg, simply as a military dictatorship. …  The need to pay attention to internal peace, the functioning relationship with the Majority Social Democrats, to the people's voices, to contain hunger riots and strikes, was clear to the civil Reich leadership as well as to the OHL. The more difficult the war situation became, the more the Reichstag ... gained power as an independent and self-willed institution." (DeepL translation)

Does anyone know of a source that has a good, solid argument for the military dictatorship claim? GHStPaulMN (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I see de facto and quasi-dictatorship used for describing the situation, not necessarily that Ludendorff was a sole dictator in style of Caesar. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)