Talk:Stab-in-the-back myth

Added section on military situation, plus claim that German frontier was not crossed

Map showing the Western Front as it stood on 11 November 1918. The German frontier of 1914 had been crossed only in the vicinities of Mulhouse, Château-Salins, and Marieulles in Alsace-Lorraine.

I've added a section on various assessments of the actual military situation in November 1918. I think it is important to provide context to claims made by e.g., Ludendorff as to what the situation actually was. Please review and amend it as appropriate.

In a number of articles we have on this period the claim that the German frontier had not been crossed by Allied forces is made. This is clearly incorrect based on the map of the western front produced by West Point (who presumably are a reliable source for this) showing that the German frontier of 1914 had been crossed in at least 3 places by 11 November. If what is meant is that the frontier of 1869 had not been crossed, well, the relevance of this is not clear - Alsace Lorraine was the German frontier in 1914 and is surely the relevant reference point. I've struck this claim out - the German frontier was crossed, albeit only in a few places and in relatively shallow penetrations. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Does it really matter whether the frontier was crossed? See this section on the German economy during World War I. Food shortages throughout the war, widespread severe malnutrition, widespread typhus, shortages of coal, imports cut off by the British blockade, shortages in civilian clothing, shortages of soap, shortages of hot water, reduction of public transportation and street lighting, overcrowded housing in the industrial cities, and little or no recreation due to the closing down of theaters and cabarets. The deterioration of living conditions would result in further deaths and further discontent, regardless of what happened on the battlefield. Dimadick (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Does it really matter whether the frontier was crossed?" - It matters if the claim is being made, in the voice of Wikipedia, that this was the case, when it was in fact not the case. But more specifically I think the idea is that Germany did not "lose" because of this "fact". Otherwise I largely agree with what you've written - reviewing the lead section we possibly under-play the degree to which historians, whilst agreeing that the stab-in-the-back is a myth, do agree that the economic collapse and collapse in morale on the home front was a cause of the German defeat. FOARP (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

fixing the lede and more

This lede is written very poorly. Accordingly, the idea several paragraphs down, that historians "unanimously reject" , is false. Let's have a closer look:

It maintained that the Imperial German Army did not lose World War I

First of all, this is nonsense because the Imperial German Army did not lose World War I. The Central Powers or German Empire did. Now maybe the Imperial German Army lost the war "for" those parties, and is the reason for the aforementioned losing, but that is never clarified. And no historian on record for saying the "stab in the back myth is false" is actually saying that the Imperial German Army is the reason the aforementioned lost.

It maintained that the Imperial German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield

Second, for that specific army to lose a battle "on the battlefield" means it was beaten in the war (everyone died) or everyone ran away specifically as a result of whatever was done "on the battlefield". . The idea that this describes Germany in 1918 is something no historian states. So, the premise being argued is false. Even Russia in 1916/1917 was not defeated "on the battlefield". The troops rioting and the home front falling apart even to the point of mass retreat rather than battle is not an "on the battlefield" defeat. No historian suggests it was.

Coming forth to offer a surrender when none of that has happened to this specific army is by default not losing "on the battlefield", either.

For Germany to lose a war "on the battlefield" means, then, that the war ended because of what happened "on the battlefield" - there, specifically. To allege that this is what happened and not assess what was happening at the time - the mutiny in port, the riots back home, the declarations of socialist republics, the abdication, the collapse of Austria-Hungary, the advances in the Balkans (all of which happened and has nothing to do with the Imperial German Army being defeated in battle) is something no historian "unanimously" states.

was instead betrayed by certain citizens on the home front

Whether or not the German Army was "betrayed" is an opinion of what the actions that occurred were. The way the lede is written suggests that all historians agree that there was no action that constitutes betrayal on the home front. Which is patently false. I think for this sentence to make sense, it would have to say "lost the war because of certain citizens on the home front".

especially Jews, revolutionary socialists who fomented strikes and labour unrest,[1] and republican politicians who had overthrown the House of Hohenzollern in the German Revolution of 1918–1919.

Jew-led revolutionary socialists like Clara Zetkin, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, and Jew anarchists like Kurt Eisner, as well as Jews like Gustav Landauer, Ernst Toller, Eugen Leviné and Erich Mühsam were at the forefront of the movement and Eisner literally just got out of jail for fomenting strikes and labor unrest only shortly before declaring his short lived state we know as the Bavarian Socialist Republic.

I would suggest keeping the changes I've made to the lede, which are a synthesis of what the article evaluates: a) the condition of Germany's army b) who was blamed for the loss of the war:

It maintains that the German Imperial Army was not in bad shape at the end of World War I and that the war was lost because of certain citizens on the home front – especially Jews, revolutionary socialists who fomented strikes and labour unrest,[1]

More:

The antisemitic instincts of the German Army were revealed well before the stab-in-the-back myth became the military's excuse for losing the war.

"instincts?" What army has instincts? This is POV pushing to suggest that an army has instincts. Military's excuse for losing the war? So the military - nay, the GERMAN military - is the reason the war was lost? If you're just going to revert my edits, at least have the decency not to prevent other people from seeing why this lede and the part I mentioned are fallacious.

Lolyouvegottobekiddingme (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

the idea several paragraphs down, that historians "unanimously reject" , is false Historians unanimously reject a false statement. That makes sense. What is the problem then?

The Central Powers or German Empire did This is nitpicking. It is perfectly alright to say "Ensign Jones lost the whole war by doing the wrong thing" although other people were involved.

it was beaten in the war (everyone died) or everyone ran away Those are the only possiblities why a country loses a war? Either everybody dies or everybody runs away?

Your reasoning does not make sense. But it does not matter because the article is not supposed to be based on your reasoning anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Historians unanimously reject a false statement. That makes sense. What is the problem then?

because historians reject the stab-in-the-back myth, not the things you are suggesting the stab-in-the-back myth are. You are stating the myth incorrectly. In order for the myth to be stated correctly, as written, the following would have to be true:

a) the German Imperial Army lost WWI on the battlefield

AND

b) nobody betrayed the German Imperial Army.

That's your first sign that you have stated the myth incorrectly. The second is that the myth is simply that the German army was not in bad shape and the collapse of the home front caused Germany to lose the war.

This is nitpicking. It is perfectly alright to say "Ensign Jones lost the whole war by doing the wrong thing" although other people were involved.

even if your suggestion is that "Ensign Jones lost the whole war by doing the wrong thing even though other people are involved", the equivalent, as it pertains to Germany, is also neither true nor what the stab-in-the-back legend refutes. And I established that. Please reread: "Now maybe the Imperial German Army lost the war "for" those parties, and is the reason for the aforementioned losing, but that is never clarified. And no historian on record for saying the "stab in the back myth is false" is actually saying that the Imperial German Army is the reason the aforementioned lost" So, basically, you are misrepresenting my representation of an error in the article.

Those are the only possiblities why a country loses a war? Either everybody dies or everybody runs away?

Again you skirt the issue - this time, focusing on something I wrote in quotes as an example. You again misrepresent what I have pointed out that is false about the lede.

Your reasoning does not make sense. But it does not matter because the article is not supposed to be based on your reasoning anyway.

You sound a little smug, don't you think? You really think focusing on something I wrote in parenthesis, misrepresenting what I am pointing out as false and ignoring everything else warrants such? I notice you had nothing to say about the part that is so obviously a violation of Wikipedia policy and basic writing standards. This isn't a literature class. Lolyouvegottobekiddingme (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. You don't listen to the most relevant parts, so I will just repeat them:

Read WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Sigh, no, how about you read that and you tell me where this garbage pile of unsourced text falls within those parameters:

The antisemitic instincts of the German Army were revealed well before the stab-in-the-back myth became the military's excuse for losing the war. In October 1916, in the middle of the war, the army ordered a Jewish census of the troops, with the intent to show that Jews were under-represented in the Heer (army), and that they were over-represented in non-fighting positions. Instead, the census showed just the opposite, that Jews were over-represented both in the army as a whole and in fighting positions at the front.

on RS and OR: thank you HobGadling, thank you Mathglot, for telling me calling out this garbage text and rewriting it so it doesn't violate RS or OR and is encyclopedic is inserting my "opinion"; do you even read your own links or do you just send them to other people?

more on RS and OR: I want a reliable source stating that the "unanimously rejected" part was that the German army was betrayed by certain citizens. I also want a reliable source stating that the other part of the myth is not that Germany was undefeated on the battlefield, which the text says and is cited, but the "German army lost the war on the battlefield". These are not the same things. Every time I have taken the idea actually presented in the text and changed the lede to reflect this. Mathglot, you still aren't making an appearance after reverting my work now and it's been nearly 24 hours. Both of your conduct towards me is so hostile and unappreciative, I hope I never make the mistake of opening up a Wiki page, looking for info and thinking "oh someone should fix that". There is no behavioral standard, no legitimate review process, no consideration for RS, or OR, which is your repeated justification for content that clearly violates both. I have completely had it with this site. Lolyouvegottobekiddingme (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please undo your last change or explain why you are changing sourced content without adding citations that overturn the sourced content already present. When I have the time, I will add further citations supporting the sourced content already there (well, that was there), but you cannot simply change the account or the analysis of what happened based on your own theories or knowledge of events of the period. Please understand that you could be the distinguished professor of German history at the university of Heidelberg with more than one published book on the aftermath of WWI and you still would not be able to add this information to the article without citations, and it would be reverted if they did; it’s not personal. So nobody is unappreciative and nobody is hostile; this is just the way Wikipedia works and all content must be WP:Verifiable and all content that is challenged requires citations from reliable sources. Not personal in your case either, and your content will be removed again if you do not provide them, but it would be a better look if you removed your last edit yourself while you are looking for citations to support it. Mathglot (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)