Analyse this source.

One of the main problems for the Weimar government was the right-wingDolchstosslegende – the claim that the Army had been ‘stabbed in the back’ by the government (whom the right called ‘the November criminals’).

Do you agree with this source? Give reasons for your answer. Can you provide another source to prove your point?

This entry was posted in Senior II History 2011 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Analyse this source.

  1. Martina Mendiondo says:

    I partly agree and partly don´t agree with this source because the Weimar goverment didn´t have any opption, they had to sing the T of V. On the other hand if I was in their possition I woud have negociated some terms of the T of V, for example the reparation paiments. The november criminals were the politishians who sing the T of V.

  2. Lucas Demaria says:

    The stab in the back was a legend imposed by the right to convince the german people that they had not lost the war, instead the government had betrayed them.

    I found a collection of stab in the back pictures here http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/publications/reviews/BarthRev069.htm

    However, historians say that the german army was out of reserves and overwhelmed in the fall of 1918.
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_legend#cite_ref-1
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/german_experience_01.shtml

  3. Tomas posse says:

    for me it was half and half because germany was forced to sign the treaty because if they didn´t do it war would continue and germany would be devastated or destroyed.On the other hand some politicians didn´t matter if german soldiers were dieing or not they only wanted power and money

  4. I partly agree with this source because it’s true that Ebert had no option because if not the allies would have invaded Germany. But he could have waited and ask the opinion of the people and tried to negotiate the Treaty as to be less harsh.

  5. Marina Menendez says:

    Pato i dont agree with this source, because when the Kaiser left and Ebert came he was forced to sign the treaty. Ebert didnt had any option. I think the blame should go to the Kaiser for leaving Ebert with no option.

    (i wrote it again because i confused and wrote my email wrong)

  6. Chloe Taylor says:

    I definitely dont agree with this source.People didn’t understand that Ebert didn’d have any other option. If he had refused to sign the treat of Versailles war would have probably broken up again and any country was preared for another war. They were just recovering form the First World War. At first Ebert didn’t want to sign it, becuase he was as angry as the population but he quickly realized de consecuences of not singing it.

  7. Malaki Helou says:

    I partly agree with this source. Because Ebert’s government did not think so much in Germany and their people, their thoughts and their feelings towards the government. Apparently, they didn’t care, but that was a mistake. But also I think maybe Ebert had good intentions but did not know how to resolve problems and having so many opponents it’s difficult to complace everybody and it all ended up in a mess.

  8. Milagros says:

    I dont agree with this source, the goverment didnt have any other option, they had to sign the T of V. The right wing said this because they wanted people to think that Eberts government was not going to make German succeed.

  9. Camila Cincunegui says:

    I think this source is partly correct. Because Germany wasnt in conditions to choose what to do because they were weakened by the war. So Ebert saw the only easy way to try to finish with this problems, signing the treaty. It’s not completely correct because Ebert could have listen to what people thought about all this chaos

  10. Diógenes Dietrich says:

    I partially agree with the source because many German people, specially in the military, would have never signed a treaty which included harsh terms as the Treaty of Versailles. Although some knew they couldn’t win they preferred to die fighting. However I think that what Ebert did was correct because if he didn’t sign the consecuences would have been much worse.

    SOURCE:
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/RjYPU8S-pcI/AAAAAAAABKw/ZE0uMzoVqi4/s1600-h/T073240A.jpg

  11. Francisco Vazquez says:

    I agree with the source. after a long time of fighting, some guy appears and ‘throws everything away’, even though someone had to do it. Go To: http://www.johndclare.net/peace_treaties5.htm
    (only pay attention to Source A, below the cartoon click on ‘Click here for the interpretation’.

  12. miri says:

    i agree partly with this source because although they did the wrong thing by taking their own desicions instead of consulting, they thought they were saving the country, doing what was best

  13. Luca says:

    I don’t agree with this source because Ebert was forced to sign the ToV, he didn’t want to “stab germany in the back” he just wanted to make peace with the allies so that he could solve things in an easier way in Germany,

  14. Nacho Salaverri says:

    I agree but i think that what they did was not wrong or right. They were desperate and they acted without thinking.

    I cannot find a source that proves my point because every source i found says that the army was stabbed in the back and that it was wrong.

  15. malena di bella says:

    Hi Pato! I completely agree with the source because the army must have felt betrayed by the government. I mean, as the government and the left wing wanted to stop the rebellion from the right side, they didn’t care who they have to kill or fight against. The only thign ebert wanted, was to stop and avoid rebellions. And of course the army felt betrayed because as the army had been “created” by the government because it’s GERMAN’S ARMY,they must have felt apalled because of fighting against their own country.

  16. candelaria says:

    people thought this because they didnt want lo accept that they had lost the war, and i dont agree with this source because in my opinion german army was very weak to win the war, and it was the right decision.

  17. Richi Levene says:

    I fully agree with the source, because Germany had a powerfull army, and when Ebbert signed the treaty, Germany´s army went into decrease. The right, wanted a powerfull army again, and they were against the weymar republic,leaded by Ebbert, who had done what was better for Germany, by signing the treaty, if not, they would continue with the war and things would go from bad to worse.

    Pato: I copyed the source url because I can´t upload it: http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/09/4/0/0/02146252612884919.jpg
    It shows exactly the same as the previous source did, the weymar republic betraying the German army

  18. Pedro Nardi says:

    Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Stab-in-the-back_postcard.jpg
    The “Dagger-stab-in-the-back Legend”: Austrian right-wing caricature of a Jew stabbing the German Army in the back with a dagger. The capitulation was blamed upon the unpatriotic populace, the Socialists, Bolsheviks, the Weimar Republic, and especially the Jews. (1919)

    Yes, it shows how the Army felt betrayed by the civilians on the home front, especially the republicans who overthrew the monarchy.

  19. gitika says:

    I partly agree with this source because I do believe that the government of Ebbert should have taken consideration of what people in Germany wanted or at least show some fast positive result,not have to pay 6600 million to the allies and reconstruct Germany that was in a mess. Whereas, I believe that if Ebbert went on with the war and did not take a desicion on the spot, it could have caused many problems which they would have to face sooner or later.So in away after war they would not have been able to escape from all this problems.

  20. cata says:

    i agree with the source, the goverment should had asked the opinion of the people, but in the other hand i think they did what they thought it was right to do for the country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.