The Stab-In-the-Back Myth Was Not a Myth

A 1924 German political cartoon showing Philipp Scheidemann, the German Social Democratic politician who proclaimed the Weimar Republic and was its second chancellor, and Matthias Erzberger, an anti-war politician from the Centre Party, who ended World War I by signing the armistice with the Allies, as stabbing the German Army in the back. Translation: “That is you! You scoundrel!” “Germans, remember!”

Upon becoming a Christian, and being raised where and when I was raised, there are many sections of the Bible that are problematic for me. Having gone to high school in California in the ’90s, we were subject to mandatory holocaust education, wherein we were taught that anti-Semitism was to be frowned upon. It was wrong to think that any race had any particular negative trait or tendency, let alone the Jews. This was of course racism, and racism, as it has been universally decided upon, is pure evil. Among the negative traits we were not allowed to think the Jews possessed to any degree was disloyalty, or duplicity. And not only was I not allowed to think this, but I didn’t think it anyways. I had many friends who were Jews over the years, and I never found them particularly disloyal, or treacherous. It was with much consternation, then, when I read various passages in the Old Testament that said exactly this!

Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb. – Isaiah 48:8

Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the Lord. – Jeremiah 3:20

For the house of Israel and the house of Judah have dealt very treacherously against me, saith the Lord. – Jeremiah 5:11

Oh that I had in the wilderness a lodging place of wayfaring men; that I might leave my people, and go from them! for they be all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men. – Jeremiah 9:2

For even thy brethren, and the house of thy father, even they have dealt treacherously with thee; yea, they have called a multitude after thee: believe them not, though they speak fair words unto thee. – Jeremiah 12:6

But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. – Hosea 6:7

Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law. – Zephaniah 3:4

Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. – Malachi 2:11

Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. – Malachi 2:14

The Betrayal of Judas – After the drawing by Willy Knabe

Upon realizing that Jesus had died for my myriad sins, I decided to do something for his namesake–something people haven’t tried to do in a long time–prove God right, even about the Jews. I mean, if the Jews are not generally treacherous, then all those prophets above are false, right? So without further ado, I present to you the evidence that the stab-in-the-back myth was not a myth.


This incident took place during the Ludendorff Offensive, also called Operation Michael, at the tail end of World War I. Germany had just signed a very favorable peace treaty with Russia called the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, wherein Russia would lose 74% of its coal mines and iron ore, 50% of its industry, 26% of its railway network, 27% of its farmland, 26% of its population, and 300 million gold rubles to the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire).

With Russia out of the war, and now paying them dividends, Germany could now focus all her fighting strength on the western front. Unfortunately, as Russia left the war three new players entered it: Japan, China, and the United States. The dubious reasons these three countries joined the war and against whom is an interesting topic on its own, and one I will get into later. Germany, seeing a limited window to conquer Paris and thus force France to surrender before the new players would arrive, decided on a massive offensive called the Ludendorff Offensive. The offensive started off strong, but then something went haywire, which isn’t quite explained. The German army’s supply lines disintegrated, and they started running out of ammunition, food, and even water.

Indiana Neidell, the narrator here, says Ludendorff’s supply system was not prepared to follow their advancing army. But why not? Their initial offensive into France and their offensive into Russia during the Brest-Litovsk negotiations covered much more ground.

This pink area is the ground Germany gained during the Ludendorff Offensive. Did they really go so far as to stretch their supply lines?

Germany also had plenty more farmland with which to gather food, so it’s not like this was the result of Britain’s embargo, which had gone on for years.

The descriptions of scenes in the above video beggar belief, and they are not explained to any satisfactory degree. Perhaps a quote from Kaiser Wilhelm II’s memoir could shed light on the subject:

I immediately summoned Field Marshal von Hindenburg and the Quartermaster General, General Gröner. General Gröner again announced that the army could fight no longer and wished rest above all else, and that, therefore, any sort of armistice must be unconditionally accepted; that the armistice must be concluded as soon as possible, since the army had supplies for only six to eight days more and was cut off from all further supplies by the rebels, who had occupied all the supply storehouses and Rhine bridges; that, for some unexplained reason, the armistice commission sent to France–consisting of Erzberger, Ambassador Count Oberndorff, and General von Winterfeldt–which had crossed the French lines two evenings before, had sent no report as to the nature of the conditions.

– The Kaiser’s Memoirs, p. 285-286

Paul von Hindenburg, who was Chief of the Great General Staff at the time of the Ludendorff Offensive, also mentioned these rebels in a statement explaining the Kaiser’s abdication:

Public opinion has been recently discussing the question why the Kaiser went to Holland.  To obviate erroneous judgments, I should like to make the following brief observations.

When the Imperial Chancellor, Prince Max of Baden, announced the Kaiser’s abdication on November 9th, without the Kaiser’s previous declaration of assent, the German Army was not beaten, but its strength had dwindled and the enemy had fresh masses in readiness for a new attack.

The conclusion of the armistice was directly impending.  At this moment of the highest military tension revolution broke out in Germany, the insurgents seized the Rhine bridges, important arsenals, and traffic centres in the rear of the army, thereby endangering the supply of ammunition and provisions, while the supplies in the hands of the troops were only enough to last for a few days.

The troops on the lines of communication and the reserves disbanded themselves, and unfavourable reports arrived concerning the reliability of the field army proper.

In view of this state of affairs the peaceful return home of the Kaiser was no longer to be thought of and could only have been enforced at the head of loyal troops.  In that case the complete collapse of Germany was inevitable, and civil war would have been added to the fighting with the enemy without, who would doubtless have pressed on with all his energy.

The Kaiser could, moreover, have betaken himself to the fighting troops, in order to seek death at their head in a last attack; but the armistice, so keenly desired by the people, would thereby have been postponed, and the lives of many soldiers uselessly sacrificed.

Finally, the Kaiser might leave the country.  He chose this course in agreement with his advisers, after an extremely severe mental struggle, and solely in the hope that he could thereby best serve the Fatherland, save Germany further losses, distress, and misery, and restore to her peace and order.

It was not the Kaiser’s fault that he was of this opinion.

Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VI, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. – Deuteronomy 19:14

An illustration from a 1919 Austrian postcard

Strangely enough, von Hindenburg failed to mention this seizing of the bridges in a memoir he wrote called Out of My Life, which discussed the Great War extensively, but he does speak about it in generalities on pages 437-439 in the chapter called Towards the End:

For could there be anything more crazy than the idea of making life impossible for the Army? Has a greater crime ever had its origin in human thought and human hatred?

Paul von Hindenburg, Out of My Life, p. 438

General Erich Ludendorff also wrote a memoir, My War Memories: 1914-1918, and did not mention it. He only has this tidbit to say:

Everywhere working men were beginning to say: “better a terrible end than terrors without end.” Scheidemann stated that the cause of this regrettable attitude was the lack of food, which he attributed partly to the shortage of waggons. I instantly agreed to adopt, so far as lay in my power, every measure that could relieve the shortage. In general his statement constituted a serious indictment of our Government, which had allowed the splendid spirit of 1914 to be so terribly changed.

Erich Ludendorff, My War Memories, Vol. II, p. 752

Could this be because he was in on it?

I laid great stress on the importance of thorough preparation for the destruction of lines and bridges which could influence the course of operations, and upon the removal to Germany of our own material. I continually discussed with the Chiefs of Staffs the problems of evacuation and destruction.

Erich Ludendorff, My War Memories, Vol. II, p. 745

Neither did Corporal Adolf Hitler mention it in his memoir of the war, Mein Kampf, although he was incapacitated in the hospital at the time of the revolution which gave rise to the social democracy known as the Weimar Republic. He does have this to say, though:

I gradually discovered that the Social Democratic Press was predominantly controlled by Jews. But I did not attach special importance to this circumstance, for the same state of affairs existed also in other newspapers. But there was one striking fact in this connection. It was that there was not a single newspaper with which Jews were connected that could be spoken of as National, in the meaning that my education and convictions attached to that word.

Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race – the Social Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries of the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the row of names – Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellenbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for months past.

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 59-60

You can see here from this infographic that of all the leaders of the German Revolution listed, only one was not Jewish–the first president of the Weimar Republic, Friedrich Ebert. And even he did his part as the leader of a munitions factory strike in January of 1918!

In January 1918, when the workers in munition factories in Berlin went on strike, Ebert joined the strike leadership, but worked hard to get the strikers back to work.[5] He was pilloried by a few politicians from the extremist left as a “traitor to the working class”, and from the right as a “traitor to the fatherland”.

Wikipedia entry on Friedrich Ebert

At the very moment when the German divisions were receiving their final orders for the great offensive a general strike broke out in Germany.

At first the world was dumbfounded. Then the enemy propaganda began activities once again and pounced on this theme at the eleventh hour. All of a sudden a means had come which could be utilized to revive the sinking confidence of the Entente soldiers.

‘Germany Facing Revolution! An Allied Victory Inevitable!’ That was the best medicine to set the staggering Poilu and Tommy on their feet once again. Our rifles and machine-guns could now open fire once again; but instead of effecting a panic-stricken retreat they were now met with a determined resistance that was full of confidence.

That was the result of the strike in the munitions factories. Throughout the enemy countries faith in victory was thus revived and strengthened, and that paralysing feeling of despair which had hitherto made itself felt on the Entente front was banished. Consequently the strike cost the lives of thousands of German soldiers. But the despicable instigators of that dastardly strike were candidates for the highest public positions in the Germany of the Revolution.

– Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 160

Now, is this to say that Germany would have won the war, but for the German Revolution–instigated by the synagogue of Satan–in which German socialists cut off supplies to their own army? Well, no. The United States, despite having a relatively small army at the time, was increasing their footprint by the day, and had just broken a sweat as Europe was on the verge of complete exhaustion. But if you ask me, would Germany have even had those enemies to contend with, if not for the international Jewish propaganda campaign against Germany? The answer would be no.

Protocol No. 7

5. We must compel the governments of the GOYIM to take action in the direction favored by our widely conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly promoted by us through the means of that so-called “Great Power” – THE PRESS, WHICH, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS THAT MAY BE DISREGARDED, IS ALREADY ENTIRELY IN OUR HANDS.

In a word, to sum up our system of keeping the governments of the goyim in Europe in check, we shall show our strength to one of them by terrorist attempts and to all, if we allow the possibility of a general rising against us, we shall respond with the guns of America or China or Japan.

Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

The Protocols of Zion literally list the exact 3 countries that joined World War 1 after Russia left it! To explain the single-minded one-sidedness of the international press during this war, I shall refer you (these links go directly to the pages specified, so make sure to check them out!) to pages 129, 314, and 369 of Out of My Life by Paul von Hindenburg, chapters 6 and 7 of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler; pages 360-366 in the chapters on the press and propaganda at the end of My War Memories, Vol. I by Erich Ludendorff; pages 331-333 in chapter 14: The Question of Guilt in Kaiser’s Memoirs by Kaiser Wilhelm II; and the entirety of The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-sen (only a 49-page read). Long story short, Hitler, Ludendorff, and Wilhelm explain the massive propaganda campaign waged against Germany and the near complete lack of any counterpart on their side, and Sun explains the same thing: that there was a steady drumbeat of pro-British, pro-French, and anti-German propaganda even in China–so much so that China joined an alliance with countries it had every reason to hate–Great Britain and Japan–against a country it had little reason to hate–Germany. For corroboration of this, and a list of false claims made against the German Empire by the international media, read Falsehood in Wartime by Arthur Ponsonby (only a 95-page read).

An example of WW2 anti-German atrocity propaganda meant to recall the propaganda of WW1

I mean, the list is staggering: lopping nurses’ breasts off, bayonetting babies, crucifying enemy soldiers, making oil out of one’s own dead soldiers, starting the war–none of which turned out to have any evidence behind it. And by no means is the list comprehensive, because the Austrians and Bulgarians were accused of rounding up people in churches and gassing them. The British made a formal apology for that, because it turned out not to be true:

There is still more research to be done on this topic, though. For further reading on this Dolchstoßlegende, or stab-in-the-back ‘myth’, I have heard that there is more such evidence in these books:

The Last Four Months by Frederick Barton Maurice

Could We Have Avoided, Won, or Broken Off the War? by Max Bauer

A Jew In the Army by Alfred Roth (Otto Arnim)

Der Staatsfeindliche Zionismus (Zionism, Enemy of the State) by Alfred Rosenberg

If I find more witness to this treachery, I’ll add it to this blog entry. Bookmark this page if this inquiry interests you!

And when this cometh to pass, (lo, it will come,) then shall they know that a prophet hath been among them. – Ezekiel 33:33

Sincerely,

Jason Stuermer Roberts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s