DolchstosslegendeEdit
Dolchstosslegende (Stab-in-the-back myth)
The Dolchstosslegende is the name given to a postwar narrative that took hold in Germany after the end of World War I. It claimed that the German army did not actually lose on the battlefield, but was betrayed from within by civilian leaders, political factions, and moral critics at home. In its most influential form, the legend asserted that demoralized officers and soldiers were stabbed in the back by socialists, liberals, and, in particular, by Jewish leadership and other “fifth column” actors who undermined the war effort and the existing state. The phrase itself is German, with the term Dolchstosslegende literally meaning “dagger-thrust legend” or “stab-in-the-back myth.” The idea would prove deeply destabilizing for the early years of the Weimar Republic and would be deployed by various political movements moving forward, including those later associated with Nazism.
Historical background
The end of World War I left Germany with widespread exhaustion, social disruption, and a sense that the war had become intolerable. In the months following the armistice, a chorus of voices across the political spectrum questioned the terms of surrender and the political decisions that led to it. Some veterans’ groups and nationalist pamphleteers began promoting the view that the army had not failed in the field, but had been betrayed at home by a coalition of civilian politicians, socialist agitators, and other elites. This position found fertile ground in a climate of upheaval, inflation, and revolutionary ferment.
The narrative was reinforced by events surrounding the fall of the monarchy and the establishment of the Weimar Republic. The new democratic government faced immediate challenges, including political violence, economic turmoil, and a complicated relationship with the Allied powers. For many Germans, especially those who valued discipline, national sovereignty, and continuity with a perceived military tradition, the Dolchstosslegende offered a tidy explanation for the defeat that avoided acknowledging battlefield results or the strategic constraints imposed by the war’s final stages.
Core claims and functions
At its core, the Dolchstosslegende asserts several linked propositions: - The German army had been winning or was capable of continuing to win on the front, but was undermined by treacherous civilian leadership and political opponents. - The surrender and the terms of the peace settlement were not consequences of military reality but of internal betrayal. - Specific targets of the betrayal were political figures in the new government, workers’ and socialist organizations, and groups associated with the Jewish community, who were accused of sabotaging the war effort from inside. - The myth served to preserve a prestige-laden narrative of national unity and military honor, while delegitimizing the democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic.
In addition to its immediate political uses, the Dolchstosslegende functioned as a powerful mobilizing symbol for later movements. It provided a framework for cantankerous critiques of democracy and for the packaging of extremist ideologies that rejected the postwar settlement and sought to restore a pristine national order. By casting the republic as a product of cowardice or treachery, proponents could argue for strong leadership, centralized authority, and aggressive nationalism.
Circulation, propaganda, and impact
The myth circulated through newspapers, pamphlets, veterans’ associations, and political circles. It was adopted and amplified by factions on the far right, who argued that true national strength required rejecting the legitimacy of the Weimar system and reasserting a heroically “unbroken” national will. The Dolchstosslegende fed into broader narratives about military virtue, civic decay, and the necessity of returning to a stronger, more hierarchical political culture.
The most consequential consequence of the myth was its role in delegitimizing the Weimar Republic in the eyes of large segments of the population. By casting the republic’s leaders as foreign to the honor of the military, the legend undermined trust in democratic governance and provided a ready-made justification for anti-democratic action. It also paved the way for antisemitic conspiracy theories that linked the country’s difficulties to supposed Jewish influence, a line of argument that would later be exploited by the National Socialist movement.
Historiography and controversies
Modern scholarship treats the Dolchstosslegende as a political myth rather than a factual account of the war’s end. While it is true that German morale and civilian support played complex roles in the latter stages of the conflict, most historians emphasize the reality of battlefield pressures, strategic challenges, and the overwhelming military situation facing Germany. The myth is widely understood as a tool of nationalist and anti-democratic actors rather than a neutral interpretation of events.
From a political perspective, the Dolchstosslegende is studied as a case of how memory, identity, and ideology can shape public discourse after a catastrophe. Proponents of the legend sought to preserve a sense of national honor and to argue for a stronger, less pluralistic political order. Critics—across the political spectrum—have pointed out that the narrative distorted the conditions of victory or defeat and that its most virulent forms contributed to social division and, in the long run, to a perilous backlash against minority groups and democratic norms.
From a contemporary standpoint, some argue that recognizing the myth’s origins and uses helps explain why postwar Germany faced persistent political instability. The legend’s endurance demonstrates how national trauma can be weaponized to undermine institutions, a warning that remains relevant for how societies handle wartime memory and political reconciliation. Those who critique the myth often emphasize the importance of responsible leadership, evidence-based public discourse, and adherence to the rule of law in the face of crisis.
See also