CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

Stab-in-the-back myth

belief that German soldiers were betrayed at the end of World War I

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 21, 2026
Entity authorityQ160944
Source-derived summary

The stab-in-the-back myth (German: Dolchstoßlegende, pronounced [ˈdɔlçʃtoːsleˌɡɛndə] , lit. 'dagger-stab legend') is an antisemitic and anti-communist conspiracy theory that was widely believed and promulgated in Germany after 1918. It maintained that the Imperial German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield, but was instead betrayed by certain citizens on the home front – especially Jews, revolutionary socialists who fomented strikes and labour unrest, and republican politicians who had overthrown the House of Hohenzollern in the German Revolution of 1918–1919. Advocates of the myth denounced the German government leaders who had signed the Armistice of 11 November 1918 as the "November criminals" (November­verbrecher).

When Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party rose to power in 1933, they made the conspiracy theory an integral part of their official history of the 1920s, portraying the Weimar Republic as the work of the "November criminals" who had "stabbed the nation in the back" in order to seize power. Nazi propaganda depicted Weimar Germany as "a morass of corruption, degeneracy, national humiliation, ruthless persecution of the honest 'national opposition'—fourteen years of rule by Jews, Marxists, and 'cultural Bolsheviks', who had at last been swept away by the National Socialist movement under Hitler and the victory of the 'national revolution' of 1933".

Historians inside and outside Germany, whilst recognising that economic and morale collapse on the home front was a factor in German defeat, unanimously reject the myth. Historians and military theorists point to lack of further Imperial German Army reserves, the danger of invasion from the south, and the overwhelming of German forces on the western front by more numerous Allied forces, particularly after the entrance of the United States into the war, as evidence that Germany had already lost the war militarily by late 1918.

Background

In the later part of World War I, the Supreme High Command (Oberste Heeresleitung, OHL) controlled not only the military but also a large part of the economy through the Auxiliary Services Act of December 1916, which under the Hindenburg Programme aimed at a total mobilisation of the economy for war production. In order to implement the Act, however, Generalfeldmarschall Paul von Hindenburg and his Chief-of-Staff First Quartermaster General Erich Ludendorff had to make significant concessions to labour unions and the Reichstag. Hindenburg and Ludendorff threatened to resign in July 1917 if the Emperor did not remove Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg.

Editorial summary

“Stab-in-the-back myth” enters the record as belief that German soldiers were betrayed at the end of World War I. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Stab-in-the-back, myth and belief can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA strong contextual entry point for chronology, institutions and public events when official records are distinguished from later interpretation. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1918, 1919, 1933, 1916—that can be checked directly. The linked authority record independently contributes the date 1918. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Stab-in-the-back, myth and belief.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Stab-in-the-back myth” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Stab-in-the-back, myth and belief provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q160944. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1918, 1919, 1933 and 1916.

Critical limits

Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Stab-in-the-back myth”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Stab-in-the-back myth primary sources, Stab-in-the-back myth archive and Stab-in-the-back research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Stab-in-the-back myth”?
  2. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
  3. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Stab-in-the-back myth” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.