Plebbit history of germany

I was reading about the fall of the Wiemar republic and the rise of Nazism on plebbit. Do you think the version of things given in pic related is accurate? If not, where does it fail?

Attached: plebbit germany history.png (979x4206, 525K)

Maybe try asking on /his/. You're likely to only get stormtard answers here on Sup Forums, anyway.

kill yourself

>reading reddit
it's like you want to fry your brain. stop looking for actual information on historical events on garbage websites and maybe you'll actually learn something

I skimmed through it and can't really say if he's full of shit or not, but I do know he's wrong on the idea that German soldiers were misplacing their feelings after WW1 as to why Germany lost. Not one single foreign soldier set foot on German soil throughout the entirety of the war. They absolutely were justified in feeling stabbed in the back, because they were.

From what I understand, Germany was militarily fucked in the autumn of 1918. Defeat was a matter of a few months away no matter what they did. The home front was starving and the front lines had major supply problems. The last major German offensive had failed. The last major Allied offensive had succeeded. More and more American troops were arriving. And the newly conquered territories in the East couldn't be exploited fast enough to offset the huge Allied advantage.

Asking the Allies for an armistice was actually the German supreme army command's idea.

The US involvement is where that "stabbed in the back" feeling originates. Germany had almost taken France, the french lost their industrial capacity and were in the middle of a mutiny, the Brits were planning an evacuation of France whilst starving themselves. It wasn't until hundreds of thousands of fresh US troops showed up, with all of their supplies and industrial might, that the war turned irrevocably from Germany's favor.

>stab in the back myth
stopped reading there, the author believes jews were scapegoated for no reason.

Attached: 1503408043272.gif (650x318, 3.78M)

but then he doesn't talk about how Hitler rescued everything. Pic related

Attached: hitler-economics.png (1680x2975, 716K)

>this is all thats left of the lefty raid

>Germany had almost taken France
Never happened.
>the french lost their industrial capacity
source?
>were in the middle of a mutiny
The mutinies were suppressed fairly quickly, and I'm not even sure the Germans knew about them. The French tried to keep the extent of the mutinies a secret.
I suspect that the "stabbed in the back" feeling happened largely because the German wartime government censored news of how badly things were really going, and in early 1918 the Russians pulled out of the war... so defeat just a few months later was shocking.

>never happened
meant to say paris, not france
>source
much of northern france was held by Germany and thus they lost their most industrialized zones.
>secret mutinies
unlikely, as if it detracts from their overall poor war-making posture at the time. As I said, the BEF were planning their evacuation prior to Marne.

>meant to say paris, not france
true
>much of northern france was held by Germany and thus they lost their most industrialized zones.
I'll have to read more about this. From what I understand, Britain and France never faced an existential supply crisis during the war, although they faced rough ones.
> As I said, the BEF were planning their evacuation prior to Marne.
But the Battle of Marne took place in 1914, so I'm not sure to what an extent the German ability to punch into France still mattered in 1917 for the public morale, given the intervening years of frustration, stagnant front lines, and hunger.

This.
I was in history course that extensively “rebutted” the idea that Germany was betrayed at the end of WW1.
It’s pretty conclusive the monarchy sold out Germany and shifted blame on the Social Democrats in the armistice, but workers strikes in 1917, incited by Socialist Jews, doomed the Reich.

>From what I understand, Britain and France never faced an existential supply crisis during the war, although they faced rough ones.
They were just as hungry if not moreso than the krauts.
>I'm not sure to what an extent the German ability to punch into France still mattered in 1917 for the public morale, given the intervening years of frustration, stagnant front lines, and hunger.
in '17 Germany had just made massive gainz in Italy, almost taking Venice. France was on the verge of collapse and the Brits weren't far behind. The Russian Empire was all but gone, and it was never exactly clear which side the US would take if it joined the war. The public had no reason to believe the war was lost up until it was quite literally snatched from their hands with the arrival of US troops.

It's quite interesting OP, the way the plebbitor describes the Communists and the Nationalists.

Firstly, the description of the Communists literally only gets a single innocuous sentence whereas the description of the Nationalists gets a big description calling it's moral positions into question. Further to that point, it's even more interesting that, when describing the Nationalists, the plebbitor takes the time to note that they drew upon anti-Semetic sentiments. Noting that "before the war had been fringe elements". This is highly salient mainly due to the UNDENIABLE Jewish nature of the Communists who A) had initiated the Spartacist uprising - leading the the deaths of thousands of Germans and B) whose sole interest was to wrest Germany away from the Germans.

Kind of a small point to forget for someone so well versed in Weimar history, wouldn't you say? These fucking kikes, man. You can't trust them as far as you can throw them.

>pic related.

Attached: d9c6e30a5853355974ec652db426953de000cc228c595374d57cdee83f03dc46.jpg (1524x1262, 447K)

The bullet points at the end make everything crystal clear: this while post is yet another attempt to frame Drumpf as Literally Hitler. "Leftists didn't fight back hard enough," "conservatives thought they could control the Nazis" etc. Every point has an obvious modern parallel, and all of them push the idea that le progressive liberals are on the right side of history, and everyone else is either willfully ignorant or secretly genocidal.

The Central Powers by 1917 were fcked, with or without the Americans. True, Russia had fallen, but Austria-Hungary/Ottoman Empire were on their last legs, basically being propped up by the Germans. Bulgaria was irrelevant, while Britain/France/Italy/Portugal/Japan still had the will to fight and vast colonial reserves to fall back on. Germany was already in a practically unwinnable situation by 1917, a best case scenario for them would be an antebellum status quo stalemate.

China and Japan were too far to realistically fight the Krauts. Italy never made any gains until 1918. Britain was increasingly having to distract itself with the spudnigger revolution and that + the fact that the BEF commanders were planning their exit from France prior to Marne, it all goes to show that the war was never clear-cut on who would win up until the US committed to a side.

Every single sentence you posted is factually incorrect. The Ludendorff Offensive was a spectacular failure and the Germany Army was shattered in summer 1918. The dolchstoss is a self-serving myth fabricated by Ludendorff to explain his own fuckup.

I've never even heard of a WWI-era German commander admitting post-war that the leadership had blundered into war and then had failed to win it. I'm sure some did, but I think there was also a lot of ass-covering. The cold brutal fact is that the Kaiser's government had colossally fucked up. The top brass, being essentially a branch of government, was partly responsible for this.

Nobody can deny that the (((revolution))) inside the country had an negative influence.

You can think that the front was looking sooo bad, so they decided to give up (which is bullshit, if you think about where the fucking front line was: Outside of Germany) - if it is so bad, then why the hell don't they even have to retreat?
You can think that the paticipation of the USA was the game changer (even thougth that the US soldiers never participated in a real trench war and were always far away from every major front).
But everyone has to agree that a fucking revolution inside the country itself won't be benefitial for the war! Of course it will have an influence. You can talk about how strong/weak this influence was, but you will never be able to deny it.
The backstabbing is not a lie, it happened. MAYBE (likely) they would still have lost without it, but we don't know, what we do know for sure is that it happened.

If you think that the attempted revolution had no influence on the war, then your opinion has to be dropped immediately.

The revolution didn't begin until after the German High Command had already convinced the Kaiser to agree to an armistice with the Entente. It wasn't some Jewish revolution, it was a revolution that had broad support from many groups of Germans - a good chunk of the military and many of the workers. And remember, it was the military and the workers who were being worked to the bone in this increasingly futile effort. Germany was fucked in November 1918. The war was over one way or another.
You might be confusing the revolution with the January 1919 Spartacist uprising - a revolution that was quickly put down by the same government that had taken the place of the Kaiser's government after the original revolution. And it's not like such revolutionary attempts were limited to the left, either. Read about the Kapp Putsch. Many militant right-wingers also itched to grab power by force.

there were two marnes

Also small reminder to all burgers who learned in burger school that they won the vietnam war, that the USA didn't do shit in WW1.

Their only noticeable accomplishment was the Maas-Argonnen-Offensice, and in this fight 125.000 burgers and 70.000 Frenchmen died, but just 90.000 Germans.
And you are claiming that this fight, where for every dead German soldier two enemies died, was the reason why Germany decided
>"lol, seems like we lost, even thought that the enemy never managed to even push us back to Germany"

I think these two autists arguing over whether or not there was an actual stab in the back is irrelevant. What matters is that the majority of Germans believed it.

you do realize that all your
>muh, they had to work so hard
does apply to every other side too? This is not an argument.
And if you lose a war, you have to work even harder and pay reperations.
>muh, but they planned to capitulate already
But they didn't. Of course you evaluate all options. Of course someone somewhere will want some specific other option.
But deciding that you lost a war, even thought that the front line is still in enemy territory, is a little bit strange.
>muh, broad support
Source? How do you know? Was there a referendum? Did someone make a poll about it?

But I doubt that the British were planning an evacuation during the second one. Could be wrong, though.

>Firstly, the description of the Communists literally only gets a single innocuous sentence
I was going to post this. He just glosses over the massive casualties and damage inflicted by the various communist insurrections, he basically paints them as victims.
God I fucking hate reddit so much. Sometimes I wonder if plebbitors like this guy are aware that that they are lying or if they are so brainwashed they don't notice it.

>does apply to every other side too? This is not an argument.
Sure it applies, but from what I understand Entente civilians were significantly better off than Central Powers civilians.
>But deciding that you lost a war, even thought that the front line is still in enemy territory, is a little bit strange.
From what I understand, the German High Command itself decided to ask the Kaiser for an armistice in late September, 1918. I don't see any reason why they would have done that unless they knew Germany was done for.
>Source? How do you know?
Because it succeeded. This would have been impossible without the support of a significant part of the military. I mean, you could argue that the German military stabbed the nation in the back, but somehow I doubt that.

The communists did fuck over a lot of countries, but in Germany they got their asses kicked by the Social Democrats and the Freikorps and they didn't really manage to do much damage, from what I understand.

But the Spartacist uprising and riots assaults, and murders by antifa and the German communist party was largely lead and supported by German Jews, and the fear of them taking power directly lead to the rise of Hitler.

Learning about the role the communists had in the turmoil of pre wwii Germany was really eye opening.

>communist jews representing 2% of your countries population and 80% of your countries wealth seize power
>turn the proudest most sophisticated country in the world into the largest sex tourism destination in the world
>legalize prostitute/pedophilia
>shocked when germans turn on this group and kill them

You can start by going back to r*ddit

There were many Jews in the Spartacist movement. However, that does not prove that most Jews supported the Spartacist movement. Those are two separate things.
There was no group, as far as I know, calling itself antifa back then.
I'm not sure whether you're driving at something. If I may ask, what are you trying to get at?