I want to just expand a bit on how utterly hopeless the strategic position had become immediately before the Armistice in 1918. It's mentioned that Bulgaria was the first Central Power to sue for peace in September after combined Entente forces broke through on the Salonika front, but it's almost difficult to grasp how swiftly the strategic position collapsed from there. By the end of October the entire Macedonian front, a million or so men had already reached BELGRADE, immediately on the Austro-Hungarian border. The Dual Monarchy had conducted a partial demobilization after the collapse of Russia as it's domestic economy simply could not handle that level of labor shortage outside of the army, and there was practically NOTHING preventing the Entente from simply sweeping into the Pannonian plain, and from there on it would have only been a matter of time before Germany was being attacked with force from it's southwest *completely disregarding the already collapsing Western Front. This is of course assuming that Austria-Hungary continued to maintain itself as a polity which it wasn't. Throughout October Austria-Hungary began it's final throes of disintegration. In late September and early October, basically all of the South Slav political parties within the empire organized themselves as a national council and declared the State of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes which displaced the authority of Austria-Hungary so quickly that Austria still under the Habsburgs for a little time yet voluntarily handed over most of its remaining naval forces to this nascent state hoping to divide the nascent polity and the Italians who certainly desired the fleet as war spoils. Simultaneously to this, the Italians broke through on the Isonzo after 3 years of stalemate as much the Austro-Hungarian army literally fell apart and deserted to their home countries mid-battle, offering the threat of ANOTHER 1.5 million troops from the South and Southeast. It was an act of cowardice and blatant baldfaced lies to even pretend that the war was still winnable. Defeat was practically certain when the Spring Offensive failed, but it is truly an act of dishonor to pull the political equivalent of escaping the guillotine and shoving someone else in your place literally as the blade is dropping. The civilian population who bought into the myth can perhaps be understood given the extent of wartime censorship, but the Generals were truly pathetic wastrels no matter what airs of nobility they tried to put on then, and that which people still place on them retroactively
It seems to be a tradition among German generals to blame everyone other than themselves because they tried the same thing after WWII, but at least they didn't have much of a platform so only wehraboos believed them.
@@hedgehog3180 oh they were believed for quite some time, their lies have been relegated to Wehraboos in the past 20 years, but during the cold war they were barely disputed. They even got to write the official history of the eastern Front for the US.
From the southeast, not the southwest. Other than that, completely correct. Much of the popular understanding of World War I mostly or even entirely disregards the importance of fronts other than the Western one (except, of course, in the countries affected by them).
NZZ today is a quite reactionary news paper. I'm actually not surprised at all. When I have, in the past, taken a look into the news paper, whenever a news story touches on some kind of political code, that is engrained in the news paper (for lack of better words) all journalistic integrity fall away and makes place for pure demagoguery and untruthfulness. Weirdly enough, as long as that is not the case, it can have some pretty decent journalism, which kind of seems to confirm, that it's not actually bad journalism, that's the problem, but something else.
It's postulated that the term "treulose Tomate" (unfaithful/disloyal tomato) that sprang up in the 1920s is a direct reference to the Italians who sided against Germany in WW1. There is also the term "Treubruchnudeln" (something close to treason noodle).
There was less political gain to blaming their allies post-war, because that by that point Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans and Bulgarians had already been dissolved or diminished. Blaming successor states like Austria which was arguably doing just as bad as Germany doesn't give the same satisfaction or further inflame tension like blaming Social Democrats. As established in the video elections are easier to win if you blame people closer to home then a nations that no longer exists.
German arrogance was a major factor in Central Powers defeat. For example, German leaders berated Austria-Hungary when Italy entered the war, but history does not record how Germany's allies responded when openly acknowledged, stupid German actions including trying to ally with Mexico drove the United States into the war, adversely repurposing the war and creating a crushing resource gradient long before thousands of American troops started to appear. Austria-Hungary was attacked by five neighbors and, with help, defeated all five in the field, but then again, Germany would not have lasted long alone in the war either. It is little remembered that the proximate event chain ending in Bulgarian exit began with German refusal to entertain Bulgarian claims in Dobruja after Rumania was defeated, leaving Bulgarians rightly feeling trapped in a German war with no marginal Bulgarian purpose.
I genuinely love how niche this channel is. This is the first video I have seen debunking this myth and beforehand you made all those videos about Poland during the early 20th century and all that other stuff. Really love it! And it also is quite well researched, so keep up the good work!
Man Ludendorff really is the original grim reaper of Germany for what he helped facilitate knowing what he did, truly a uniquely malevolent creature. Legitimately gives von Hotzendorf a run for his money
I would imagine that General Ludendorff’s morale was high because unlike the common soldier, his uniform was clean, his bed was warm and dry, and his meals were always on time.
Ludendorff lost the confidence of the troops after succeeding in taking Amiens and not reinforcing the advantage of the success. Would Sir Manatee have an episode about Neuostprussen 1793-1807? This is an episode that is insightful because it shows vantage point never shown in any other discussion. Thank you again for outstanding explanation.
Another part of it comes from the same personality elements that would've seen Japan fight to the death in WW2. A perspective that you are not defeated until you and your own have all been wiped out.
@@darzog9634Sure, some in the British government thought some Zionists had some sway over the US government when they were marginal even in the Jewish community. That doesn't explain the myth, only that people in the government were painfully ignorant and/or willing to try anything.
My grandmother‘s grandfather was a Prussian artillery officer in the war and a jew , when he was deported to Riga for extermination he entered the train wearing his uniforms
Germany lost the war because it ran out of troops. It is that simple. The policy of the German General Staff was predictaly "Send more troops!" whenever something went wrong instead of reassessing the wisdom of a failed offensive. That happened enough times that the German Army could predictably sacrifice huge numbers of "green" troops. Doing so ensured that the German Army would deny itself a huge number of non-commissioned officers indispensible in a protracted war. The German General Staff saw the offensive as the sole "honorable" warfare, but each offensive wore down any potential for defense when things started to go wrong.
That, and the home front was facing famine and had been starving since 1915. Entente soldiers ate better food in their trenches than the families of German soldiers did back home in Germany and had equally a difficult time supplying those troops at the frontline.
Germany was forced into costly offensives by the blockade and idiotic foreign policy. The 1918 spring offensive was started when it was due to American troops arriving in Europe
@@nathansullivan4433No the Charlie Chaplin Impersonator joined well after Ludendorff and others had laid the groundwork of the conspiracy theory. The painter was sent in to spy on them and then decided to take over.
This is why when Germany surrender to the Allieds in Reims in May 7 1945 Stalyn oppossed to the signing of this surrender and demanded a surrender in Berlin and in front of the highest german military ranks. Nobody will question again that Germany was defeated by the Allieds military power.
Tbh germany was just ruble by may 1945, it was hard to argue that germany was "stabbed in the back" instead of "bombed into dust". Compared to the end of ww1 where they were relatively intact apart from the economy being gone
I believe it was Ludendorff that told Hindenburg that they could no longer supply the army at the level it would take to try and turn the tide. Many of the field Generals on the Entente side wanted to push the Germans back to Berlin and the Americans had just got into the fight. The field generals figured they could be in Berlin by mid1919 but the politicians on both side and the people were very war weary so Peace was struck. Had the politicians listened to the ones who knew, WWII might have been averted. Had the Entente pushed the Germans back over their own border then there could have been no’Stab in the Back’ theory.
Germany's generals pulled off a revised version of the same tactic after the Second World War. It's the origin of the "Everything Was Hitler's Fault" myth. Now quite a few things very much were Hitler's fault, but that in turn made it easy for any former Wehrmacht officer looking to clean up his Bundeswehr application to simply fob off all the blame for his mistakes. I think it was LaserPig who joked that "Every post-war German memoir can be summarized as follows: Here's how I was a total badass, never committed any war crimes, and the only reason I ever took a loss was because that stupid Austrian corporal forced me into a stupid plan of action that I told him wouldn't work."
The irony is that there is a pretty good argument to be made that Germany was betrayed during the First World War... except the culprits were a strategically inept military and aristocracy whose viewpoints and priorities were given far too much focus in the pre-war years. Resulting in a nation that had far too many enemies, not enough resources to meet them all, and (most crucially of all) was unable to use the resources it had at its disposal effectively.
I disagree with the closing statement. The nuremberg trials didn't prevent a "new" Dolchstoßlegende. At least not the early stages of it. The myth, at it's beginning, is the Generals shifting the blame to someone else. And the clean Wehrmacht myth is exactly that. The nuremburg trials didn't stop that at all. What they stopped was a shift of blame to minorities. But we did (and partially still do) have that new Dolchstoßlegende after WW2
Plenty of people also believe that the Wehrmacht was this amazing super army unable to lose even though it had numerous issues but just sorta got lucky at the start.
I think the World War 2 version of the stabbed in the back myth is the Madman Hitler theory, which was also promoted by the memoirs of Wehrmacht generals shortly after the war.
@@baneofbanes Even unprepared, the Allies still could've destroyed Germany in the opening few years. Really, Germany's strength in WW2 came more from the arrogance of the early Allied leaders than it did from German effectiveness.
This is now the second time Sir manatee uploaded a video, just shortly after I could have needed that exact video in school. It's like he wants to avoid the topics I need in school just to release them right after
You mentioned German troop morale was low and 10% surrendered but it should also be said the German army was defeated in the field and was falling back from France into Belgium, unable to hold the Allies.
Maybe the Germans thought that an armistice would not annul Treaty of Brest and Litovsk . Or maybe they didn’t know armistice would have been softer and maybe even promised to be softer, and then they were stabbed in back
@salt27dogg The reality is they knew they lost, they knew brest litovsk was way too harsh and was going to be undone (Versailles was nowhere near as harsh). There was no stab in the back other than by Hitler destroying the German republic
@@salt27dogg- the Germans knew exactly because the terms of the armistice were those of a surrender. Look them up. People see ‘armistice’ and think it was a truce. Far from it. The terms were draconian - the Germans had to give up mountains of equipment (ships, planes, artillery, machine guns, locomotives and carriages), evacuate all colonies and occupied territories, and allow Allied occupation of the left bank of the Rhine plus large 30km bridgeheads on the east side of the Rhine opposite Cologne and Mainz.
It's kind of funny that WWII almost had a "stab in the back moment" when the July 20th plot just kind of got a little unlucky. After crying about "being stabbed in the back" he almost got stabbed in the back himself for real. Well, not really "stabbing", more like "kaboom".
Great video! Love your channel. Digestible videos on niche topics - I can learn something interesting, without having to listen to 90% stuff I know already, or some 2 hour semi scripted ramble! One of your best videos yet - Other than the glorious goulash video ofc
As the one clip from a movie on Kaiser Wilhelm II said: "Am I to blame for everything? I gave my life for the fatherland. My navy betrayed me, my army fell apart, Tirpitz, Ludendorff...they betrayed me. They lost me the war, they lost me my home"
AFAICT, the reason for the lack of a "stab in the back" legend after WW2 was that Germany was just so totally devastated by the war that it was hard to think of a plausible "we could have won, BUT" scenario.
Enjoyed this. Growing up in the Commonwealth, there was little focus on the German experience, so little interest in things like the “Stab in the back” concept. Interesting to see what it was and which segments of German society adhered to it.
When Germany surrendered in 1945, doenitz got on the radio and announced by saying the Wehrmacht fought honorably and was defeated in battle. This was to prevent another stab in the back myth from forming
What timing! I just recently finished my undergraduate thesis on the Dolchstoßlegende with relation to potential Greek literary influences. If anyone’s looking for another really good source, George Vascik’s “The Stab-in-the-Back Myth and the Fall of Weimar Germany” is a great place to start, combining primary source docs with broader commentary and contextualization.
The 'Stab in the back by civilians" was invented by that coward Ludendorff as an excuse to his precious army being beaten, something he didn't have the courage to admit. They loved it when they attacked so quickly and devastated France and Belgium but when German land was threatened with what they had done to others, they gave up.
Just remember that the war started because those who "did to others" started encirling Germany on all sides after 1894, and continued doing so with Austria-Hungary (2-front war danger) by favoring Serbia.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Nit relevant to this video but it must be said Germany is not innocent in the encircling. Germany caused a lot of it herself by her arrogant Foreign policy which demanded any agreement HAD to favor Germany by a wide margin. 70-30 preferred. The idea of equality was anathama. German policy of the time was to shove a mailed fist in another Country's face and "Friends now OR ?" But as I said, after raping other countries land, they gave up when THEIR soil was threatened with what they did so happily to others.
@@genovayork2468 Austria-Hungary and Serbija started the war. Second tier responciblity goes to Germany and Russija. And France and Great Britain have the third tier of it really wasnt them.
@@genovayork2468how? Germany controlled France’s most populous and industrialized land, and was bound to free up a few million men from the East. France already was bleed dry, Britain didn’t have much kick in it left either, And Germany had a whole veteran army coming down AND importantly would have had time to prepare instead of throwing it into a desperate offense
@ganjacomo2005 "If the war is lost, the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people will need to continue a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves because this nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation. Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones have been killed".
Germany lost the war the single moment the Royal Navy managed to impose the naval blockade. Anyone who believes Germany could´ve won by 1918 its insanely dumb, let alone by late october when the Vardar Offensive forced the surrender of Bulgaria and the Ottomans and the battle of Vittorio Venetto disintegrated the already collapsing Austro Hungarian army.
Germany lost the war when Moltke's advance towards Paris was stopped at The Battle of the Marne in September of '14. The only hope the Germans had of winning was a quick campaign with them taking Paris and forcing France to capitulate before the BEF arrived in force. That didn't happen and we instead had 4 years of attritional warfare that Germany could not win.
The Wehrmacht lost the moment they entered Belgium, for what the British would do afterwords was 100% predictable. Germany would have been better off just pushing throught the French fortifications.
Im Jewish and my great grandfather served in the austrian army in ww1. Later on the Jews of austria went thought the holocust. This was the real backstab
If anyone committed a betrayal it was the German Empire. Austria-Hungary wanted to sue for peace but Germany responded with a threat of invasion ( Sixtus-Affair ). Austria-Hungary would not have been dissolved although it would have lost significant parts of its territory. This could have prevented a second world war.
Germany in general was a really bad neighbor. They gave the blank cheque then immediately drew both the french, english and belgians into the war and then even sent the zimmerman to mexico so the us joined much faster than it otherwise would have. Like "yeah austria il support you and definitely wont escalate the war and make literally half the world our enemies"
@@afridge8608 It's almost like Wilhelm II was an incompetent moron, the only reason why Germany won on the eastern front was because Tsar Nicholas was an even bigger moron.
I wish you explained a little bit more in depth how disastrous the military situation was, because even today I find people thinking that the Germn army could have still done something to at least mitigate the defeat. Other than that, cool video, good summary
Not sending armies across no man's land in futile attacks up until the armistice was signed that were nothing but an attempt at saving face is something they could have done to mitigate the defeat. It's about all they could have done.
So basically Austria Hungary had completely militarily collapsed, and so the south of Germany was vulnerable to Italian and Balkan attack, and also the entente's hundred days offensive had pushed Germany to the border in many locations, as well as wiping out virtually all of the German military strength besides the navy. (The same navy which was in active revolt by 1918 btw)
It is kinda funny that for me video about Germany WWI surrender ended with my screen showing "A big thank you to:" - Battle of Verdun; - The Great Vowel Shift; - European Conquest of America. :D :D :D Although I am not sure how the second one is related to the topic. :D
It was not germans fault! It was the fault of the french, english and americans. Do your research! The english even used this war to end german monarchy against the wilth of the volk!
@@CivilizedWasteland Saying with contempt that it was the fault of your enemies that you lost a war rather than your own fault just makes you sound like a sore loser. Besides that, if he had provided additional details, I perhaps would have been able to give a more in depth reply. Maybe you would like to speak on his behalf?
@@joemiller947 its pretty obvious to everyone that Germany took all of the blame for WW1 when every other country involved was equally responsible. Nothing more needs to be said.
In my opinion, the reason why Germany lost the war is that they didn't complete their victories. Just look at the examples: 1915. occupation of Poland, Russia retreats, and instead of going for Petrograd, Germans stop near Riga. Later, they occupy Serbia, and keep going until Greek border, and there they stop. After winning at Caporetto, they could have keep going to Milan and Rome, yet they stopped near Venice. All those breakthroughs for no change in strategic situation. And what happened when the Entante had such breakthrought? Breakthrough on Sallonica front- Bulgaria surrenders. Breakthrough at the Piave river- Austria surrenders. Breakthrough at Hindenburg line- Germany surrenders. Not so often talked about, but Entante completed their wins, Germany didn't. That is why they lost.
German military defeat was inevitable. And Ludendorf and Hindenburg - later even president of the Weimar republic which he in effect had undermined - shifted the blame of the inevitable defeat. The German army WAS defeated, even when the allies not invaded Germany. With disastrous consequences. Hitler also believed this conspirary, overestimating German military power, ignoring the real reasons Germany lost the First World War (it simply couldn't win a war of attribtion against half of the world), Hitler therefore declared war on the US in december 1941, and it led Hitler to the crazy belief he would ever surrender and drag Germany into the Wagnerian abyss. In short, it made World War Two even worse and more fanatic ......
What's also ironic is that Hitler tried to creatie a reverse stab-in-the-back myth. While WWI was lost by the politicians according to the military, Hitler claims WWII was lost as his generals didn't follow his instructions. So WWII was not lost by the politician Hitler but by the military. Both complete nonsense of course.
Deine Videos sind einfach toll. 🤗 Echt, riesiges Kompliment! Besonders bewundere ich dein Talent, alles so knapp wie möglich zu halten! Die Videos sind nie länger als sie unbedingt sein müssen. Und auch die Grafiken kommen ohne große Animationen oder Soundeffekte aus. 10/10
I say old bean, this is such a fine and sophisticated TH-cam channel. Such serendipity that I should stumble across it. I tip my fine top hat to you and shall fastidiously polish my monocle in anticipation of your future content.
To anyone who is interested in that exactly period of time in german histroy i highly recommend the german movie "Gewaltfrieden". It is also a 2-parter here on TH-cam but sadly only in German and in rather low quality.
You are doing such a great job with these videos. It seems only the far right talks about these topics, and then people start to believe them. Keep it up!
The entire hierarchy of the KPD was literally Jewish. The guy who came to take over Bavaria and declare it ‘red Bavaria’, was Jewish. The leader of the KPD, Luxembourg, was also Jewish. Kaiser Wilhelm II literally said ‘I won’t advocate for a thousand workers and a hundred Jews’.
The point of this video is that the German surrender was caused by the incompetence of Ludendorf and Hindenburg, not by the socialist interim government. You managed to completely miss the point of the video
@@hugh4035 ‘The-stab-in-the-back myth’ is almost exclusively linked to supposed ‘anti-semitism’. Claiming that I’ve gone off the video’s topic is pure gaslighting. But let’s say hypothetically it is against the video, who says I was relating the points to what was said in the video? I’m answering the title, which as I’ve stated prior, is almost always associated with antisemitism in academia (schools, colleges, university) particularly amongst the right. I was positing that it wasn’t a myth relating the question to the Jewish perspective.
Exactly, even just going to the wiki page (yes, I know wikipedias rubbish, but I did in the least double-check sources). At least 9 of the 18 leaders of the revolution KPD, Spartacusts, SPD, etc... Rosa Luxemburg, Kurt Eisner, Leo Jogichers, Ernst Toller, Erich Muhsam, Gustav Landauer, Eugene Levine, Max Levien and Karl Radek were Jewish. Tees certainly right about the war being lost in 1918. But simply washing off the Jewish element, which, as said above is what the stab in the back is most well known for as a total antisemitic conspiracy without event attempting to disprove it is apauling historiography.
You discussed all of the symptoms. But never the core reason of the myth. Question? Why did the Americans join the war so late? This fresh army out resourced the Germans.
The problem being cowards allowed to run things and not suffer for it. People should be forced to suffer some consequence for their actions and that includes leaders in all fields. Leadership has consequences.
@@vaxrvaxr It wasn't Ludendorf who did that. He just asked the Kaiser to sue for peace and even said that "we will leave this mess to the politicians". and then ambled off to support revanchist bastards like NSPD.
Question for Sir Manatee and his viewers. Had Germany not resumed unrestricted submarine warfare and provoked the US into joining the war on the side of the Entente. Could they have used the reinforcements from the Eastern front to push and end the war in the west or use them to shore up defenses along the Salonika or Italian fronts to prevent a collapse?
It wouldn't have changed much, really. By the time American troops actually arrive in significant enough numbers to have an outcome on the Western Front Germany has already gambled and lost much of their resources and reinforcements on the Kaiserschlacht. Three months later Bulgaria surrenders, a month after that Austria-Hungary both surrenders and ceases to exist and the German Revolution breaks out. Even if France surrendered, which is unlikely to happen quickly enough before the surrender of Bulgaria, which would spell doom for Austria-Hungary and because the Kaiserschlacht simply couldn't have succeeded in any form, most of those reinforcements would have had to stay in France as an occupation force. All this while plundering what food they can from France in a desperate attempt to stay off starvation in Germany. For Britain it would simply be a waiting game before the Central Powers collapse into themselves, and they wouldn't have had to wait long.
The point is not that Germany "could have won" but that they wouldn't have had to unconditionally accept the demeaning conditions of Versailles if they hadn't lost the capacity to fight back after the November Revolution
@@perguto They had lost any capacity to continue to fight much earlier. Ludendorff had been calling for suing for peace by early 1918. If it had kept on fighting the country would have been occupied.
You should make a video about the Sparticist Uprising and the failed German Revolution, I think its an undercovered subject in the sphere of comprehensive academic youtube
It was not the Generals or the Nazis that started this roomer of the stab in the back, it was the German troops on the frontline that were in enemy territory and truly felt they were winning the war and no where near a defeat and felt that victory was eminent, the troops were suddenly suprised and confused over the surrender and were not given a reason why they had to surrender and retreat from their post in enemy territory, furthermore after the war they then had to pay reparations despite the fact that German troops didn’t believe that it was Germanys fault for starting the war. And if you where a German alive during this time and later was effective by the Great Depression from the failed global Capitalist system and you seen who was holding a lot of wealth and power and influence and Among the very few benefiting off of the failed global capitalist system despite making up less then 1% of the population then it’s no wonder why Germans would grow to embrace National socialism and the Nazi Party and then the Stab in the back theory doesn’t sound so far fetch to the average German back then, It’s easy for us to criticize them and blame it on Nazi Manipulation but the stab in the back theory predates the Nazi party and the Germans living in those times were not manipulated they were all listening to hitler because hitler was saying what was on all of their minds, he was saying what they fault, he offered them an economic solution to save Germany within 5 years if they give him a chance and he succeeded, he pulled Germany out of a Great Depression and Germany became a powerhouse he transformed Germany back into a super power on the world stage and he brought back pride to the Germans so of course they are going to love him and follow him and his rule
No, Ludendorf and Hindenburg joined in on the stab-in-the-back by 'revolutionary elements' immediately in order to save themselves from the blame for screwing up the war
I don't know if this was the intended effect of this video, but what you said makes me consider that this conspracy theory only really became a mainstream idea because of historians post 45. I'm actually surprised how little the nazis used it in their propaganda according to what you say - altough the explanation you give makes sense obviously.
@@baneofbanes It was. Unfortunately the world isn't a fantasy where a government ticking certain boxes of virtue makes it better for the population. When people are starving, unable to feed their families, when their country is being extorted and plundered by the Entente, mainly the French, when deg eneracy is running rampant, and when a certain tribe has disproportionate representation in the media and bolshevik activities, people take some basic truths, and amplify them through their indignation. And from the perspective of a German who lived through those times, having someone lift the country back out of the pit and restore it to its former glory, it is absolutely understandable, in fact logical, for him to support the NSDAP
Great video. Have you considered doing a video on Ebert himself, and whether he saved or hurt democracy because of his actions during the early Republic?
Germany was soundly defeated on the battlefield. Her allies had already been defeated and surrendered to which off course made Germanys situation even worse.
The Kaiser was on the front line with his soldiers doing mad high fives when someone in the head office surrendered without him knowing. Kaiser had 2 options, march on Berlin and cause a civil war on his people or abdicate.
This guys full of shit, German army broke through the western lines and had a clear way to Paris, but just weren’t prepared to back it up with supplies, food and bullets.
@@MattyVonLongSchlong they took a lot of ground, but they didn't fully breakthrough and like you said yourself - they didn't have the supplies to support the war effort. German soldiers were practically starving and gorged themselves the moment they captured Entente food storages in the trenches. They lacked weapons, ammo, food, drinkable water - most of all, they lacked manpower. Over half a million men were killed or wounded during the three months the Kaiserschlacht lasted. They could not have taken Paris even if they were invited to do so.
The actual cause of defeat in Germany relating to WW1 was numerous. The Allied blockade strangled the German economy and its ability to produce goods and manufacture of weapons, medicines etc. The 'Turnip Winter' is a testament to this action from the allies. Then you have the incessant defeats (which you noted) involving Austria-Hungary. Bulgaria and the Ottomans. The Austro-Hungarians were exhausted by 1917 and the Emperor himself made covert moves to end the ruinous war behind Germany's back, which was exposed and this proved Austria's unreliability as well as its condition. Then you have the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, which demonstrated the lust and nature of the Germans in victory. All this did, was stiffen the resistance of the Allies. (Well done Germany!!! slow-hand clap) Then you have to throw in the industrial/economic and manpower the USA threw in, once they entered the war. Germany and its path to the continuance of the conflict was now on a timer, once America entered the war, brought about by Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare and its absurd Zimmerman telegram. The latter being the total responsibility of the Kaiser and the German High Command. WW1 and Germany's defeat, with the addition of WW2 throws up a question in relation to Germany and its national character, as these events lay out one of Germany's real problem, which you could argue started in the defeat at the Battle of Jena. Which points to Germany and its rather strong reputation for being 'sore losers'. In our own contemporary times, we see this characteristic in football. When England won the World Cup in 1966, W. Germany lost, which then sparked the Country transforming their approach to the game, utilising all manner of scientific and technical training to produce winning teams beginning in 1974. OK, winning those World Cups was great for Germany and its prestige, but football is supposed to be fun. Germany turned football into a science. Not exactly conducive to the 'spirit of the game', is it? Anyway, a good production, but please note the 'blockade', which was a foundation stone in Germany's defeat in WW1, plus its lack of manpower and resources against 3 world powers in 1914-18 and to be joined by another in 1917. Replacing Russia with the USA, the most dynamic power in that period. And to think, this ALL could've been avoided, if only someone could've placed the World map in front of Helmuth Von Moltke. who gambled the future of Germany on a battle in 1914. A battle that was to be lost at The Marne. Germany's war was over after that, where the Allies would utilise the time to bring its resources, empire, manpower to the conflict. A conflict from 1915 to its conclusion, would only end one way. So I humbly make this request, can Germans please, please, please, look at maps when contemplating war. It sort of puts things in their proper perspective.
The only real stab was against the Kaiser when he was "abidicated" And the Civil War of 1919. But that isn't exactly a cause of the surrender but a consequence.
Great video! But weren't the far right nationalists also starving in Germany by 1918? Didn't they also hear the news of Austria-Hungary breaking apart? Despite all the horrible conditions, did the far right support the war at that point? Or did they just "forget" that they hated the war when it was convenient for them?
I think it was the shock of how harsh and how much a walk-back Versailles was to the initial conditions agreed to for the Armistice. I'm thinking some weird version of rose-colored glasses in hindsight.
The far right was and to some extent is still embracing the idea of ultimate loyalty and fighting for the honour and glory of the imperial fatherland at any cost. It' irrational in many ways and quite hypocritical and deranged. It's based on a fabricated mythology of a romantisized germanic nation and empire created in the 19th century in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars and the Congress of Vienna.
Short answer: the far-right ideologues (the Pan-German League, the DLVP) supported the war until the very end but have very little popular support. Long answer: Even the the more moderate right support the war. In Reichstag at this time it was dominated by the big business, industrialist National Liberal Party and the aristocrat, Junker Conservative Party. As you can imagine their voters were not gonna effect by the war much. Like before WW1, the right in Germany was very elitist, in 1918 they still supported major territorial annexations (Hindenburg Peace) and unrestricted submarine warfare. The workers were the ones who suffer the most and they overwhelmingly supported the SDP, which along with the People’s Progressive Party and Zentrum, called for peace at the end of the war. There were some attempts among the far-right but it wasn’t until the Weimar that right-wing parties were able to expand into the working class.
Reposting this outside of reply section as youtube has that weird thing with not leting people reply to controversial comments sometimes. Exactly, even just going to the wiki page (yes, I know wikipedias rubbish, but I did double-check sources). At least 9 of the 18 leaders of the revolution KPD, Spartacusts, SPD, etc... Rosa Luxemburg, Kurt Eisner, Leo Jogichers, Ernst Toller, Erich Muhsam, Gustav Landauer, Eugene Levine, Max Levien and Karl Radek were Jewish. Tees 100% right about the war being lost in 1918. But simply washing off the Jewish element, which, as said above is what the stab in the back is most well known for as a total antisemitic conspiracy without event attempting to disprove it is not good historiography.
This is one of those instances where I think a war, horrendous as it was, should have gone on for longer. Probably not as far as raising an enemy flag over the Reichstag, but had the Entente ended the war occupying substantial German territory on the left bank of the Rhine, and preferably also a piece of Bavaria (to illustrate the fact that Germany was surrounded), the absurdity of the stab-in-the-back myth would have been obvious to far more Germans. The Weimar Republic would have had more of a chance. And who knows, perhaps private Hitler would have had the chance to be sent back to the front and become just another statistic.
@@Barb7229 Its not. the Entente coudnt push into germany or even austria. taking defensive position in ww1 was next to impossible and the few times it happened were just to bloody for the attackers. Its also likely that the entente would break before the germans. Italy almost broke a couple of times losing thousands of soldiers to take a hill in the alps and its unlikely that the US,UK and french army could take loses like that for long
@@nox5555 you are completly right, non of the Entente forces had the recources ( except maybe america ) manpower or moral of pushing into German core territory ( and maybe the generals/officers/lieutenants they were all for coninuing the war ), i just find idea intresting if the Entente would have achieved that and if the german revanchism woudnt have taken such a turn for the worst. They could have also just tried starving germany to death ok maybe there the Revolution would have just turned to the worst 😶
Both sides are wrong... yes the army was betrayed, but it wasnt by jews or socialists, it was by weak Politicians and southerners. The allies wouldnt have been able to get deep into germany because of natural defenses. there could have been a much better peace if they kept fighting for a little bit longer. giving up Bavaria or everything on the western side of the rhein instead of giving up german heartlands in the east.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
My main takeaway is what I've always suspected: the Swiss are to blame for everything
They just can't be trusted
And sensationist journalists.
@@SirManateeetheir alibis, like their cheese are always full of holes.
Chaos can be profitable if you can stay out of it.
@@SirManateee *insert zapp brannigan neutrals quote here*
I want to just expand a bit on how utterly hopeless the strategic position had become immediately before the Armistice in 1918. It's mentioned that Bulgaria was the first Central Power to sue for peace in September after combined Entente forces broke through on the Salonika front, but it's almost difficult to grasp how swiftly the strategic position collapsed from there. By the end of October the entire Macedonian front, a million or so men had already reached BELGRADE, immediately on the Austro-Hungarian border. The Dual Monarchy had conducted a partial demobilization after the collapse of Russia as it's domestic economy simply could not handle that level of labor shortage outside of the army, and there was practically NOTHING preventing the Entente from simply sweeping into the Pannonian plain, and from there on it would have only been a matter of time before Germany was being attacked with force from it's southwest *completely disregarding the already collapsing Western Front.
This is of course assuming that Austria-Hungary continued to maintain itself as a polity which it wasn't. Throughout October Austria-Hungary began it's final throes of disintegration. In late September and early October, basically all of the South Slav political parties within the empire organized themselves as a national council and declared the State of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes which displaced the authority of Austria-Hungary so quickly that Austria still under the Habsburgs for a little time yet voluntarily handed over most of its remaining naval forces to this nascent state hoping to divide the nascent polity and the Italians who certainly desired the fleet as war spoils.
Simultaneously to this, the Italians broke through on the Isonzo after 3 years of stalemate as much the Austro-Hungarian army literally fell apart and deserted to their home countries mid-battle, offering the threat of ANOTHER 1.5 million troops from the South and Southeast.
It was an act of cowardice and blatant baldfaced lies to even pretend that the war was still winnable. Defeat was practically certain when the Spring Offensive failed, but it is truly an act of dishonor to pull the political equivalent of escaping the guillotine and shoving someone else in your place literally as the blade is dropping. The civilian population who bought into the myth can perhaps be understood given the extent of wartime censorship, but the Generals were truly pathetic wastrels no matter what airs of nobility they tried to put on then, and that which people still place on them retroactively
In regards to the Austria-Hungary situation Karl I had also already made attempts at reaching out to the Entente to sue for peace in 1917.
It seems to be a tradition among German generals to blame everyone other than themselves because they tried the same thing after WWII, but at least they didn't have much of a platform so only wehraboos believed them.
@@hedgehog3180 oh they were believed for quite some time, their lies have been relegated to Wehraboos in the past 20 years, but during the cold war they were barely disputed.
They even got to write the official history of the eastern Front for the US.
Every accusation is a confession.
From the southeast, not the southwest.
Other than that, completely correct. Much of the popular understanding of World War I mostly or even entirely disregards the importance of fronts other than the Western one (except, of course, in the countries affected by them).
im surprised and shocked as a Swiss person that part of the blame of the Dolchstosslegende lies in Switzerland and NZZ in particular
NZZ today is a quite reactionary news paper. I'm actually not surprised at all. When I have, in the past, taken a look into the news paper, whenever a news story touches on some kind of political code, that is engrained in the news paper (for lack of better words) all journalistic integrity fall away and makes place for pure demagoguery and untruthfulness. Weirdly enough, as long as that is not the case, it can have some pretty decent journalism, which kind of seems to confirm, that it's not actually bad journalism, that's the problem, but something else.
I have to question why the germans didn't think that their allies were useless, and therefore blame them more than blame internal politics.
The motivation was to gain power. Attacking other countries doesn't help you gain domestic power. Demonizing your political enemies does.
It's postulated that the term "treulose Tomate" (unfaithful/disloyal tomato) that sprang up in the 1920s is a direct reference to the Italians who sided against Germany in WW1. There is also the term "Treubruchnudeln" (something close to treason noodle).
There was less political gain to blaming their allies post-war, because that by that point Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans and Bulgarians had already been dissolved or diminished. Blaming successor states like Austria which was arguably doing just as bad as Germany doesn't give the same satisfaction or further inflame tension like blaming Social Democrats. As established in the video elections are easier to win if you blame people closer to home then a nations that no longer exists.
Because they weren’t useless
German arrogance was a major factor in Central Powers defeat. For example, German leaders berated Austria-Hungary when Italy entered the war, but history does not record how Germany's allies responded when openly acknowledged, stupid German actions including trying to ally with Mexico drove the United States into the war, adversely repurposing the war and creating a crushing resource gradient long before thousands of American troops started to appear. Austria-Hungary was attacked by five neighbors and, with help, defeated all five in the field, but then again, Germany would not have lasted long alone in the war either.
It is little remembered that the proximate event chain ending in Bulgarian exit began with German refusal to entertain Bulgarian claims in Dobruja after Rumania was defeated, leaving Bulgarians rightly feeling trapped in a German war with no marginal Bulgarian purpose.
"We didn't really lose that war, and we're gonna prove it this time by getting DESTROYED" - Dr. Robert Citino on the stab-in-the-back myth.
I genuinely love how niche this channel is. This is the first video I have seen debunking this myth and beforehand you made all those videos about Poland during the early 20th century and all that other stuff. Really love it! And it also is quite well researched, so keep up the good work!
Man Ludendorff really is the original grim reaper of Germany for what he helped facilitate knowing what he did, truly a uniquely malevolent creature. Legitimately gives von Hotzendorf a run for his money
I still think German’s grim reaper award goes to Amon Goeth. When you get kicked out of the Nazis for being too evil you are special kind of monster.
I would imagine that General Ludendorff’s morale was high because unlike the common soldier, his uniform was clean, his bed was warm and dry, and his meals were always on time.
Hans Delbrück taking the cake for biggest diss of the interwar period
His son would go on to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine and his son in law was one of the participants in the 20 July Plot to kill Hitler
Makes be wonder how he’d feel about Ludendorff’s depiction in wonder woman
Ludendorff lost the confidence of the troops after succeeding in taking Amiens and not reinforcing the advantage of the success. Would Sir Manatee have an episode about Neuostprussen 1793-1807? This is an episode that is insightful because it shows vantage point never shown in any other discussion. Thank you again for outstanding explanation.
*1795, learn history before embarrassing yourself.
@@genovayork2468It’s 2 years touch grass
Another part of it comes from the same personality elements that would've seen Japan fight to the death in WW2. A perspective that you are not defeated until you and your own have all been wiped out.
Indeed, there were some similarities in their attitudes.
Which was put to the test during WWII and shockingly it didn't magically result in Germany winning, it just turned Germany to rubble.
@@hedgehog3180sure. They tested what that brings kk
“Were German troops not on enemy soil and therefore held the upper hand?”
(Laughs in Vietnamese)
What’s up Sam, you are literally my favorite history channel on TH-cam.
The GOAT has commented
@@darzog9634Sure, some in the British government thought some Zionists had some sway over the US government when they were marginal even in the Jewish community.
That doesn't explain the myth, only that people in the government were painfully ignorant and/or willing to try anything.
@@darzog9634give it a rest dude!
Sam , thank God there are no more any ethno states hell bent on the displacement and disenfranchismeny another population... Right!?!?!??
My grandmother‘s grandfather was a Prussian artillery officer in the war and a jew , when he was deported to Riga for extermination he entered the train wearing his uniforms
Incredibly based.
"nice argument, Zürcher, why don't you back it up with a source?"
"my source is that I made it the fuck up"
Germany lost the war because it ran out of troops. It is that simple. The policy of the German General Staff was predictaly "Send more troops!" whenever something went wrong instead of reassessing the wisdom of a failed offensive. That happened enough times that the German Army could predictably sacrifice huge numbers of "green" troops. Doing so ensured that the German Army would deny itself a huge number of non-commissioned officers indispensible in a protracted war.
The German General Staff saw the offensive as the sole "honorable" warfare, but each offensive wore down any potential for defense when things started to go wrong.
That, and the home front was facing famine and had been starving since 1915. Entente soldiers ate better food in their trenches than the families of German soldiers did back home in Germany and had equally a difficult time supplying those troops at the frontline.
To be fair, no general on any side reassessed the wisdom of a failed offensive. It was a running theme to keep throwing more meat into the grinder.
Germany was forced into costly offensives by the blockade and idiotic foreign policy.
The 1918 spring offensive was started when it was due to American troops arriving in Europe
The conspiracy theorists sources were basically we made it the fuck up.
Essentially, yes
It came to me in a medicinal cocaine fueled dream.
@@baneofbanes So the failed Austrian painter then 😂
And it led to disaster nearly 20 years later...
@@nathansullivan4433No the Charlie Chaplin Impersonator joined well after Ludendorff and others had laid the groundwork of the conspiracy theory. The painter was sent in to spy on them and then decided to take over.
This is why when Germany surrender to the Allieds in Reims in May 7 1945 Stalyn oppossed to the signing of this surrender and demanded a surrender in Berlin and in front of the highest german military ranks. Nobody will question again that Germany was defeated by the Allieds military power.
TH-cam:"DIE VERBORGENE GESCHICHTE" TEIL1////TH-cam:THORSTEN SCHULTE mit "Der 1WK kein Krieg von Schlafwandlern"
TH-cam:ROBERT SEPHER mit "The Hidden History of Zionism " and "Subversive Origins of Communism" 👍
Tbh germany was just ruble by may 1945, it was hard to argue that germany was "stabbed in the back" instead of "bombed into dust". Compared to the end of ww1 where they were relatively intact apart from the economy being gone
The Germans denied their atrocities in WWI and all of WWII proving them to be true.
I believe it was Ludendorff that told Hindenburg that they could no longer supply the army at the level it would take to try and turn the tide. Many of the field Generals on the Entente side wanted to push the Germans back to Berlin and the Americans had just got into the fight. The field generals figured they could be in Berlin by mid1919 but the politicians on both side and the people were very war weary so Peace was struck. Had the politicians listened to the ones who knew, WWII might have been averted. Had the Entente pushed the Germans back over their own border then there could have been no’Stab in the Back’ theory.
Germany's generals pulled off a revised version of the same tactic after the Second World War. It's the origin of the "Everything Was Hitler's Fault" myth. Now quite a few things very much were Hitler's fault, but that in turn made it easy for any former Wehrmacht officer looking to clean up his Bundeswehr application to simply fob off all the blame for his mistakes.
I think it was LaserPig who joked that "Every post-war German memoir can be summarized as follows: Here's how I was a total badass, never committed any war crimes, and the only reason I ever took a loss was because that stupid Austrian corporal forced me into a stupid plan of action that I told him wouldn't work."
The irony is that there is a pretty good argument to be made that Germany was betrayed during the First World War... except the culprits were a strategically inept military and aristocracy whose viewpoints and priorities were given far too much focus in the pre-war years. Resulting in a nation that had far too many enemies, not enough resources to meet them all, and (most crucially of all) was unable to use the resources it had at its disposal effectively.
I disagree with the closing statement. The nuremberg trials didn't prevent a "new" Dolchstoßlegende. At least not the early stages of it.
The myth, at it's beginning, is the Generals shifting the blame to someone else. And the clean Wehrmacht myth is exactly that. The nuremburg trials didn't stop that at all. What they stopped was a shift of blame to minorities. But we did (and partially still do) have that new Dolchstoßlegende after WW2
Plenty of people also believe that the Wehrmacht was this amazing super army unable to lose even though it had numerous issues but just sorta got lucky at the start.
@@hedgehog3180basically their enemies were even more unprepared than they were.
I think the World War 2 version of the stabbed in the back myth is the Madman Hitler theory, which was also promoted by the memoirs of Wehrmacht generals shortly after the war.
@@baneofbanes Even unprepared, the Allies still could've destroyed Germany in the opening few years. Really, Germany's strength in WW2 came more from the arrogance of the early Allied leaders than it did from German effectiveness.
Copium in this chain of replies is at an all time high
This is now the second time Sir manatee uploaded a video, just shortly after I could have needed that exact video in school. It's like he wants to avoid the topics I need in school just to release them right after
Don't worry they will come back in the a levels 👍
Mate I promise, I'm not doing this on purpose
No I believe this is a targeted campagne against me as a person. There is no other way around it
You mentioned German troop morale was low and 10% surrendered but it should also be said the German army was defeated in the field and was falling back from France into Belgium, unable to hold the Allies.
It does warrant always mentioning that the 100 days offensive utterly broke the German army in the field vs the Entente
Maybe the Germans thought that an armistice would not annul Treaty of Brest and Litovsk . Or maybe they didn’t know armistice would have been softer and maybe even promised to be softer, and then they were stabbed in back
@salt27dogg The reality is they knew they lost, they knew brest litovsk was way too harsh and was going to be undone (Versailles was nowhere near as harsh). There was no stab in the back other than by Hitler destroying the German republic
@@salt27dogg- the Germans knew exactly because the terms of the armistice were those of a surrender. Look them up.
People see ‘armistice’ and think it was a truce. Far from it. The terms were draconian - the Germans had to give up mountains of equipment (ships, planes, artillery, machine guns, locomotives and carriages), evacuate all colonies and occupied territories, and allow Allied occupation of the left bank of the Rhine plus large 30km bridgeheads on the east side of the Rhine opposite Cologne and Mainz.
@@primarchvulkan5097 I didn’t say there was a stab in back. I’m talking about where the propaganda myth came from .
A very important topic to shine light upon.
It's kind of funny that WWII almost had a "stab in the back moment" when the July 20th plot just kind of got a little unlucky. After crying about "being stabbed in the back" he almost got stabbed in the back himself for real. Well, not really "stabbing", more like "kaboom".
Briefcase under the table doesn't have the same ring to it as stab in the back 🤔
Great video! Love your channel. Digestible videos on niche topics - I can learn something interesting, without having to listen to 90% stuff I know already, or some 2 hour semi scripted ramble!
One of your best videos yet - Other than the glorious goulash video ofc
As the one clip from a movie on Kaiser Wilhelm II said: "Am I to blame for everything? I gave my life for the fatherland. My navy betrayed me, my army fell apart, Tirpitz, Ludendorff...they betrayed me. They lost me the war, they lost me my home"
AFAICT, the reason for the lack of a "stab in the back" legend after WW2 was that Germany was just so totally devastated by the war that it was hard to think of a plausible "we could have won, BUT" scenario.
Also Dönitz himself said that Germany was defeated if I remember correctly.
"The German Army was never defeated in WWI!!"
Ron Howard narrator voice: They were, in fact, defeated in WWI.
Enjoyed this. Growing up in the Commonwealth, there was little focus on the German experience, so little interest in things like the “Stab in the back” concept. Interesting to see what it was and which segments of German society adhered to it.
When Germany surrendered in 1945, doenitz got on the radio and announced by saying the Wehrmacht fought honorably and was defeated in battle. This was to prevent another stab in the back myth from forming
Imagine losing a war and saying na aa.
It wouldve been so easily to blame it all on nazis and hitler, but you actually did proper analysis and research into the topic. Good job.
What timing! I just recently finished my undergraduate thesis on the Dolchstoßlegende with relation to potential Greek literary influences. If anyone’s looking for another really good source, George Vascik’s “The Stab-in-the-Back Myth and the Fall of Weimar Germany” is a great place to start, combining primary source docs with broader commentary and contextualization.
Sounds very interesting. Congrats on finishing your undergraduate thesis! :)
The 'Stab in the back by civilians" was invented by that coward Ludendorff as an excuse to his precious army being beaten, something he didn't have the courage to admit.
They loved it when they attacked so quickly and devastated France and Belgium but when German land was threatened with what they had done to others, they gave up.
Just remember that the war started because those who "did to others" started encirling Germany on all sides after 1894, and continued doing so with Austria-Hungary (2-front war danger) by favoring Serbia.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Nit relevant to this video but it must be said Germany is not innocent in the encircling. Germany caused a lot of it herself by her arrogant Foreign policy which demanded any agreement HAD to favor Germany by a wide margin. 70-30 preferred. The idea of equality was anathama.
German policy of the time was to shove a mailed fist in another Country's face and "Friends now OR ?"
But as I said, after raping other countries land, they gave up when THEIR soil was threatened with what they did so happily to others.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Lmao boso, Germany and Austria-Hungary started the war by attacking Serbia, Russia, France and Belgium.
@@genovayork2468 Austria-Hungary and Serbija started the war.
Second tier responciblity goes to Germany and Russija.
And France and Great Britain have the third tier of it really wasnt them.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714I am going to smack the magic out of Gavrilo Princeps mouth when I get to hell
What tipped the scales against Germany (including morale) was America's entry into the war in 1917.
Not at all. Germany was doomed from the beginning.
@@genovayork2468 Without the USA it could have been a draw, the French army was also in mutiny.
@@genovayork2468how? Germany controlled France’s most populous and industrialized land, and was bound to free up a few million men from the East.
France already was bleed dry, Britain didn’t have much kick in it left either,
And Germany had a whole veteran army coming down AND importantly would have had time to prepare instead of throwing it into a desperate offense
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714
By the end of 1918, Italy was poised to invade Germany from the south.
@@emberfist8347 Only after Austra layed down its arms.
"The Germans have a tremendous capacity for blaming their self made problems on others". William Shirer. Very excellent documentary. Thank You
More like every authoritarian nation
Clean your own porch....we,are all people....i am german
@@dagmarvandoren9364 My father saw a lot of Germany, from the air.
@ganjacomo2005 "If the war is lost, the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people will need to continue a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves because this nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation. Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones have been killed".
Germany lost the war the single moment the Royal Navy managed to impose the naval blockade.
Anyone who believes Germany could´ve won by 1918 its insanely dumb, let alone by late october when the Vardar Offensive forced the surrender of Bulgaria and the Ottomans and the battle of Vittorio Venetto disintegrated the already collapsing Austro Hungarian army.
But muh superior Prussian military tradition!
Germany lost the war when Moltke's advance towards Paris was stopped at The Battle of the Marne in September of '14. The only hope the Germans had of winning was a quick campaign with them taking Paris and forcing France to capitulate before the BEF arrived in force. That didn't happen and we instead had 4 years of attritional warfare that Germany could not win.
The Wehrmacht lost the moment they entered Belgium, for what the British would do afterwords was 100% predictable. Germany would have been better off just pushing throught the French fortifications.
Yeah probably not no
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714
they wouldnt have succeded and the british would still have joined the war
Im Jewish and my great grandfather served in the austrian army in ww1. Later on the Jews of austria went thought the holocust. This was the real backstab
muh shoah
The first "Big Lie" in post-1900 world history that had disastrous consequences for both those that believed in the myth and those that did not.
Babe wake up, manatee just posted
If anyone committed a betrayal it was the German Empire. Austria-Hungary wanted to sue for peace but Germany responded with a threat of invasion ( Sixtus-Affair ). Austria-Hungary would not have been dissolved although it would have lost significant parts of its territory. This could have prevented a second world war.
Then maybe they should not have gone behind Germany's back.
@@joeywheelerii9136 then maybe the German army shouldn't have lost lol
Germany in general was a really bad neighbor. They gave the blank cheque then immediately drew both the french, english and belgians into the war and then even sent the zimmerman to mexico so the us joined much faster than it otherwise would have. Like "yeah austria il support you and definitely wont escalate the war and make literally half the world our enemies"
@@afridge8608 It's almost like Wilhelm II was an incompetent moron, the only reason why Germany won on the eastern front was because Tsar Nicholas was an even bigger moron.
Just here to say that I appreciate you taking the effort to provide captions. It's a small thing but it tells me you care about what you're doing.
I'd call Ludendorff a loathsome little polyp, but that would be insulting to polyps.
Actually Hindenburg wasn't much better.
@@michaelburggraf2822 He was much better.
@@RuthvenMurgatroydboth can be bad
I can say the same for Churchill.
@@IronymousYT me too, I’m not even a Churchill fan lmao
I wish you explained a little bit more in depth how disastrous the military situation was, because even today I find people thinking that the Germn army could have still done something to at least mitigate the defeat. Other than that, cool video, good summary
Not sending armies across no man's land in futile attacks up until the armistice was signed that were nothing but an attempt at saving face is something they could have done to mitigate the defeat.
It's about all they could have done.
So basically Austria Hungary had completely militarily collapsed, and so the south of Germany was vulnerable to Italian and Balkan attack, and also the entente's hundred days offensive had pushed Germany to the border in many locations, as well as wiping out virtually all of the German military strength besides the navy. (The same navy which was in active revolt by 1918 btw)
It is kinda funny that for me video about Germany WWI surrender ended with my screen showing "A big thank you to:"
- Battle of Verdun;
- The Great Vowel Shift;
- European Conquest of America.
:D :D :D Although I am not sure how the second one is related to the topic. :D
Middle English could have never defeated the German Empire obviously.
A Big Danke Schon too for your amazing Arbeit, Sir.
Grusse aus Frankreich
Merci beaucoup :)
15:12 first time I've heard you swear. Very fitting of the context
Couldn't restrain myself
Germans trying not to blame someone else for their own failures challenge(impossible)
It was not germans fault! It was the fault of the french, english and americans. Do your research! The english even used this war to end german monarchy against the wilth of the volk!
@@Ratselmeister "We would have won the war if our enemies hadn't cheated by fighting back!"
@@joemiller947 I like how you completely ignored what he said to spew your propaganda line
@@CivilizedWasteland Saying with contempt that it was the fault of your enemies that you lost a war rather than your own fault just makes you sound like a sore loser. Besides that, if he had provided additional details, I perhaps would have been able to give a more in depth reply.
Maybe you would like to speak on his behalf?
@@joemiller947 its pretty obvious to everyone that Germany took all of the blame for WW1 when every other country involved was equally responsible. Nothing more needs to be said.
In my opinion, the reason why Germany lost the war is that they didn't complete their victories. Just look at the examples: 1915. occupation of Poland, Russia retreats, and instead of going for Petrograd, Germans stop near Riga. Later, they occupy Serbia, and keep going until Greek border, and there they stop. After winning at Caporetto, they could have keep going to Milan and Rome, yet they stopped near Venice. All those breakthroughs for no change in strategic situation. And what happened when the Entante had such breakthrought? Breakthrough on Sallonica front- Bulgaria surrenders. Breakthrough at the Piave river- Austria surrenders. Breakthrough at Hindenburg line- Germany surrenders.
Not so often talked about, but Entante completed their wins, Germany didn't. That is why they lost.
They didn’t stop it is called being defeated. Or else outrunning your supply lines.
I'm deeply grateful for that thorough presentation of facts.
Thank you very much.
German military defeat was inevitable. And Ludendorf and Hindenburg - later even president of the Weimar republic which he in effect had undermined - shifted the blame of the inevitable defeat. The German army WAS defeated, even when the allies not invaded Germany. With disastrous consequences. Hitler also believed this conspirary, overestimating German military power, ignoring the real reasons Germany lost the First World War (it simply couldn't win a war of attribtion against half of the world), Hitler therefore declared war on the US in december 1941, and it led Hitler to the crazy belief he would ever surrender and drag Germany into the Wagnerian abyss. In short, it made World War Two even worse and more fanatic ......
What's also ironic is that Hitler tried to creatie a reverse stab-in-the-back myth. While WWI was lost by the politicians according to the military, Hitler claims WWII was lost as his generals didn't follow his instructions. So WWII was not lost by the politician Hitler but by the military. Both complete nonsense of course.
Deine Videos sind einfach toll. 🤗 Echt, riesiges Kompliment! Besonders bewundere ich dein Talent, alles so knapp wie möglich zu halten! Die Videos sind nie länger als sie unbedingt sein müssen. Und auch die Grafiken kommen ohne große Animationen oder Soundeffekte aus. 10/10
Vielen Dank für deine lieben Worte :) Ich schaue deine Videos auch total gerne, das letzte war echt klasse!
Du du du..
I say old bean, this is such a fine and sophisticated TH-cam channel. Such serendipity that I should stumble across it. I tip my fine top hat to you and shall fastidiously polish my monocle in anticipation of your future content.
To anyone who is interested in that exactly period of time in german histroy i highly recommend the german movie "Gewaltfrieden". It is also a 2-parter here on TH-cam but sadly only in German and in rather low quality.
Great analysis! hope more people with different algorithms see this
Großartige Arbeit, so wie immer! Deine "Vorträge" hab ich immer gerne :)
Alles Beste
You are doing such a great job with these videos. It seems only the far right talks about these topics, and then people start to believe them. Keep it up!
Very good video! Delbrück hears like a fascinating person that I've just heard off
What about 109 is that a conspiracy theory too
Yes ,109 is actually lowballingn it. Thr trur number 1 would be Egypt btw (look up "Hyksos" to find out about their side of the Exodus story)
I came here before watching this video to say boom, Italy. Argument lost.
The entire hierarchy of the KPD was literally Jewish. The guy who came to take over Bavaria and declare it ‘red Bavaria’, was Jewish. The leader of the KPD, Luxembourg, was also Jewish. Kaiser Wilhelm II literally said ‘I won’t advocate for a thousand workers and a hundred Jews’.
The point of this video is that the German surrender was caused by the incompetence of Ludendorf and Hindenburg, not by the socialist interim government. You managed to completely miss the point of the video
@@hugh4035 ‘The-stab-in-the-back myth’ is almost exclusively linked to supposed ‘anti-semitism’. Claiming that I’ve gone off the video’s topic is pure gaslighting. But let’s say hypothetically it is against the video, who says I was relating the points to what was said in the video? I’m answering the title, which as I’ve stated prior, is almost always associated with antisemitism in academia (schools, colleges, university) particularly amongst the right. I was positing that it wasn’t a myth relating the question to the Jewish perspective.
Exactly, even just going to the wiki page (yes, I know wikipedias rubbish, but I did in the least double-check sources). At least 9 of the 18 leaders of the revolution KPD, Spartacusts, SPD, etc... Rosa Luxemburg, Kurt Eisner, Leo Jogichers, Ernst Toller, Erich Muhsam, Gustav Landauer, Eugene Levine, Max Levien and Karl Radek were Jewish. Tees certainly right about the war being lost in 1918. But simply washing off the Jewish element, which, as said above is what the stab in the back is most well known for as a total antisemitic conspiracy without event attempting to disprove it is apauling historiography.
If you want a wild ride you should do something on the Kapp Putsch
Fantastic idea
Poland was betrayed in WWII though
As was Baltija and all of Central Europe.
Thanks for another nice vid Lord Manatee
Here’s something my students are gonna watch in future classes.
Not really, but with their "allies" they didn't need any enemies.
You discussed all of the symptoms. But never the core reason of the myth. Question? Why did the Americans join the war so late? This fresh army out resourced the Germans.
Conspiracy?
Let's create a new stab in the back myth !
I wish there was content like this for every country on Europe at least. Old Brittania is closest for Britain but it focuses mostly on grand politics
The problem being cowards allowed to run things and not suffer for it. People should be forced to suffer some consequence for their actions and that includes leaders in all fields. Leadership has consequences.
The dissolution of the monarchy wasn't enough for you?
@@vaxrvaxr It wasn't Ludendorf who did that. He just asked the Kaiser to sue for peace and even said that "we will leave this mess to the politicians". and then ambled off to support revanchist bastards like NSPD.
Great video! Glad to see you debunking myths
Question for Sir Manatee and his viewers.
Had Germany not resumed unrestricted submarine warfare and provoked the US into joining the war on the side of the Entente.
Could they have used the reinforcements from the Eastern front to push and end the war in the west or use them to shore up defenses along the Salonika or Italian fronts to prevent a collapse?
It wouldn't have changed much, really. By the time American troops actually arrive in significant enough numbers to have an outcome on the Western Front Germany has already gambled and lost much of their resources and reinforcements on the Kaiserschlacht. Three months later Bulgaria surrenders, a month after that Austria-Hungary both surrenders and ceases to exist and the German Revolution breaks out.
Even if France surrendered, which is unlikely to happen quickly enough before the surrender of Bulgaria, which would spell doom for Austria-Hungary and because the Kaiserschlacht simply couldn't have succeeded in any form, most of those reinforcements would have had to stay in France as an occupation force. All this while plundering what food they can from France in a desperate attempt to stay off starvation in Germany. For Britain it would simply be a waiting game before the Central Powers collapse into themselves, and they wouldn't have had to wait long.
Germany could have never won WWI.
I think they could have multiple times during the war
@@Fire157_ That's WWII. Germany doomed itself from the start in WWI.
The point is not that Germany "could have won" but that they wouldn't have had to unconditionally accept the demeaning conditions of Versailles if they hadn't lost the capacity to fight back after the November Revolution
@@perguto They had lost any capacity to continue to fight much earlier. Ludendorff had been calling for suing for peace by early 1918. If it had kept on fighting the country would have been occupied.
@@genovayork2468 No, it’s the opposite one. The Allied Powers (especially Russia) were weaker than the Allies of WW2 (until the US joined them.
Why did Britain drop leaflets of the Balfour agreement over the German front lines during WW1?
Source?
@@alfiejob6546 You could google "the hidden us role in the balfour declaration" and it is in the third last paragraph in the Times of Israel article.
You should make a video about the Sparticist Uprising and the failed German Revolution, I think its an undercovered subject in the sphere of comprehensive academic youtube
It was not the Generals or the Nazis that started this roomer of the stab in the back, it was the German troops on the frontline that were in enemy territory and truly felt they were winning the war and no where near a defeat and felt that victory was eminent, the troops were suddenly suprised and confused over the surrender and were not given a reason why they had to surrender and retreat from their post in enemy territory, furthermore after the war they then had to pay reparations despite the fact that German troops didn’t believe that it was Germanys fault for starting the war. And if you where a German alive during this time and later was effective by the Great Depression from the failed global Capitalist system and you seen who was holding a lot of wealth and power and influence and Among the very few benefiting off of the failed global capitalist system despite making up less then 1% of the population then it’s no wonder why Germans would grow to embrace National socialism and the Nazi Party and then the Stab in the back theory doesn’t sound so far fetch to the average German back then,
It’s easy for us to criticize them and blame it on Nazi Manipulation but the stab in the back theory predates the Nazi party and the Germans living in those times were not manipulated they were all listening to hitler because hitler was saying what was on all of their minds, he was saying what they fault, he offered them an economic solution to save Germany within 5 years if they give him a chance and he succeeded, he pulled Germany out of a Great Depression and Germany became a powerhouse he transformed Germany back into a super power on the world stage and he brought back pride to the Germans so of course they are going to love him and follow him and his rule
No, Ludendorf and Hindenburg joined in on the stab-in-the-back by 'revolutionary elements' immediately in order to save themselves from the blame for screwing up the war
Question. Between 1915-1917, how many factory strikes happened in Germany? How did that affect Germany's war effort?
I don't know if this was the intended effect of this video, but what you said makes me consider that this conspracy theory only really became a mainstream idea because of historians post 45. I'm actually surprised how little the nazis used it in their propaganda according to what you say - altough the explanation you give makes sense obviously.
Germanys first republic was not a good thing.
Was better than the Nazis.
@@baneofbanes Was worse than the National-Socialists. Way worse.
@@blorb32 you truly are a soyjack then.
@@baneofbanesmaybe better for Jews, Communists, and defectives
@@baneofbanes It was. Unfortunately the world isn't a fantasy where a government ticking certain boxes of virtue makes it better for the population.
When people are starving, unable to feed their families, when their country is being extorted and plundered by the Entente, mainly the French, when deg eneracy is running rampant, and when a certain tribe has disproportionate representation in the media and bolshevik activities, people take some basic truths, and amplify them through their indignation.
And from the perspective of a German who lived through those times, having someone lift the country back out of the pit and restore it to its former glory, it is absolutely understandable, in fact logical, for him to support the NSDAP
Great video. Have you considered doing a video on Ebert himself, and whether he saved or hurt democracy because of his actions during the early Republic?
If this was true, no one would admit it. However, whats good about this theory is that it was so real it didn't need to be true to work.
Amazing analysis!
Germany was soundly defeated on the battlefield. Her allies had already been defeated and surrendered to which off course made Germanys situation even worse.
The Kaiser was on the front line with his soldiers doing mad high fives when someone in the head office surrendered without him knowing.
Kaiser had 2 options, march on Berlin and cause a civil war on his people or abdicate.
This guys full of shit, German army broke through the western lines and had a clear way to Paris, but just weren’t prepared to back it up with supplies, food and bullets.
The Kaiser was not on the front lines you are thinking of the Tsar and the US troops had stopped the German advances
@@MattyVonLongSchlongno they didn’t.
@@MattyVonLongSchlong they took a lot of ground, but they didn't fully breakthrough and like you said yourself - they didn't have the supplies to support the war effort. German soldiers were practically starving and gorged themselves the moment they captured Entente food storages in the trenches. They lacked weapons, ammo, food, drinkable water - most of all, they lacked manpower. Over half a million men were killed or wounded during the three months the Kaiserschlacht lasted.
They could not have taken Paris even if they were invited to do so.
The actual cause of defeat in Germany relating to WW1 was numerous. The Allied blockade strangled the German economy and its ability to produce goods and manufacture of weapons, medicines etc. The 'Turnip Winter' is a testament to this action from the allies. Then you have the incessant defeats (which you noted) involving Austria-Hungary. Bulgaria and the Ottomans. The Austro-Hungarians were exhausted by 1917 and the Emperor himself made covert moves to end the ruinous war behind Germany's back, which was exposed and this proved Austria's unreliability as well as its condition. Then you have the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, which demonstrated the lust and nature of the Germans in victory. All this did, was stiffen the resistance of the Allies. (Well done Germany!!! slow-hand clap) Then you have to throw in the industrial/economic and manpower the USA threw in, once they entered the war. Germany and its path to the continuance of the conflict was now on a timer, once America entered the war, brought about by Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare and its absurd Zimmerman telegram. The latter being the total responsibility of the Kaiser and the German High Command.
WW1 and Germany's defeat, with the addition of WW2 throws up a question in relation to Germany and its national character, as these events lay out one of Germany's real problem, which you could argue started in the defeat at the Battle of Jena. Which points to Germany and its rather strong reputation for being 'sore losers'.
In our own contemporary times, we see this characteristic in football. When England won the World Cup in 1966, W. Germany lost, which then sparked the Country transforming their approach to the game, utilising all manner of scientific and technical training to produce winning teams beginning in 1974. OK, winning those World Cups was great for Germany and its prestige, but football is supposed to be fun. Germany turned football into a science. Not exactly conducive to the 'spirit of the game', is it?
Anyway, a good production, but please note the 'blockade', which was a foundation stone in Germany's defeat in WW1, plus its lack of manpower and resources against 3 world powers in 1914-18 and to be joined by another in 1917. Replacing Russia with the USA, the most dynamic power in that period.
And to think, this ALL could've been avoided, if only someone could've placed the World map in front of Helmuth Von Moltke. who gambled the future of Germany on a battle in 1914. A battle that was to be lost at The Marne. Germany's war was over after that, where the Allies would utilise the time to bring its resources, empire, manpower to the conflict. A conflict from 1915 to its conclusion, would only end one way.
So I humbly make this request, can Germans please, please, please, look at maps when contemplating war. It sort of puts things in their proper perspective.
Maybe i was to harsh on this channel the last time around. Very nice and interesting video.
You were too harsh!
Why were you so harsh?
Why this sounds familiar to what happened to Vietnam War?
The only real stab was against the Kaiser when he was "abidicated"
And the Civil War of 1919. But that isn't exactly a cause of the surrender but a consequence.
Great video! But weren't the far right nationalists also starving in Germany by 1918? Didn't they also hear the news of Austria-Hungary breaking apart? Despite all the horrible conditions, did the far right support the war at that point? Or did they just "forget" that they hated the war when it was convenient for them?
I think it was the shock of how harsh and how much a walk-back Versailles was to the initial conditions agreed to for the Armistice. I'm thinking some weird version of rose-colored glasses in hindsight.
The far right was and to some extent is still embracing the idea of ultimate loyalty and fighting for the honour and glory of the imperial fatherland at any cost. It' irrational in many ways and quite hypocritical and deranged. It's based on a fabricated mythology of a romantisized germanic nation and empire created in the 19th century in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars and the Congress of Vienna.
Short answer: the far-right ideologues (the Pan-German League, the DLVP) supported the war until the very end but have very little popular support.
Long answer: Even the the more moderate right support the war. In Reichstag at this time it was dominated by the big business, industrialist National Liberal Party and the aristocrat, Junker Conservative Party. As you can imagine their voters were not gonna effect by the war much. Like before WW1, the right in Germany was very elitist, in 1918 they still supported major territorial annexations (Hindenburg Peace) and unrestricted submarine warfare. The workers were the ones who suffer the most and they overwhelmingly supported the SDP, which along with the People’s Progressive Party and Zentrum, called for peace at the end of the war.
There were some attempts among the far-right but it wasn’t until the Weimar that right-wing parties were able to expand into the working class.
Nationalism makes you do crazy things
Reposting this outside of reply section as youtube has that weird thing with not leting people reply to controversial comments sometimes. Exactly, even just going to the wiki page (yes, I know wikipedias rubbish, but I did double-check sources). At least 9 of the 18 leaders of the revolution KPD, Spartacusts, SPD, etc... Rosa Luxemburg, Kurt Eisner, Leo Jogichers, Ernst Toller, Erich Muhsam, Gustav Landauer, Eugene Levine, Max Levien and Karl Radek were Jewish. Tees 100% right about the war being lost in 1918. But simply washing off the Jewish element, which, as said above is what the stab in the back is most well known for as a total antisemitic conspiracy without event attempting to disprove it is not good historiography.
The music in the background is the op. 62 coriolan overture from beethoven and then the 5th symphony also from beethoven
It is not a conspiracy. Just look what happend after und who was in control.
Another entertaining and educating video, gj
This is one of those instances where I think a war, horrendous as it was, should have gone on for longer. Probably not as far as raising an enemy flag over the Reichstag, but had the Entente ended the war occupying substantial German territory on the left bank of the Rhine, and preferably also a piece of Bavaria (to illustrate the fact that Germany was surrounded), the absurdity of the stab-in-the-back myth would have been obvious to far more Germans. The Weimar Republic would have had more of a chance.
And who knows, perhaps private Hitler would have had the chance to be sent back to the front and become just another statistic.
That is actually a pretty good idea really like im not kidding, thats a pretty intresting idea👍
@@Barb7229 Its not. the Entente coudnt push into germany or even austria. taking defensive position in ww1 was next to impossible and the few times it happened were just to bloody for the attackers.
Its also likely that the entente would break before the germans. Italy almost broke a couple of times losing thousands of soldiers to take a hill in the alps and its unlikely that the US,UK and french army could take loses like that for long
@@nox5555 you are completly right, non of the Entente forces had the recources ( except maybe america ) manpower or moral of pushing into German core territory ( and maybe the generals/officers/lieutenants they were all for coninuing the war ), i just find idea intresting if the Entente would have achieved that and if the german revanchism woudnt have taken such a turn for the worst. They could have also just tried starving germany to death ok maybe there the Revolution would have just turned to the worst 😶
@@nox5555 and i like you name reminds me of the series Wakfu, the antagonist a great antagonist like really... Man i miss that Show
@@Barb7229there was a stab in the back both of you are wrong.
Weimar conditions require Weimar solutions.
Based Sir Manatee
Both sides are wrong... yes the army was betrayed, but it wasnt by jews or socialists, it was by weak Politicians and southerners.
The allies wouldnt have been able to get deep into germany because of natural defenses. there could have been a much better peace if they kept fighting for a little bit longer.
giving up Bavaria or everything on the western side of the rhein instead of giving up german heartlands in the east.
Ludendorff the Liar already announced in August 1918 that Germany had lost.
Lots of Wehraboo cope, as expected