Why did the Jews back stab him and his nation?

>It’s a myth goy

Yes, just like the Talmud

Ok retard

they didnt, the trigger cause of the collapse of the germans in ww1 was the mutiny of the navy, the underlying factors were the fact that the blockade was biting hard, starvation was a immenient risk, the army was steadily losing ground and no longer saw any hope of stopping the allies short of the rhine, and no hope whatsoever of victory.

germany could not win, and the population faced with a choice between futile struggle for a losing cause or revolution and armistice sought the latter.

now during the chaos of the revolution one of the more prominent groups did include a relatively large number of jews, but they werent the start of the problem, and were not the driving force.

TL:DR
germany was defeated not by a stab in the back, but by a sledgehammer to the chest, Said hammer being wielded principaly by the british and french forces

Yep, America had nothing to do with le sledgehammer

honestly, in terms of the breakthough of the hindenburg line and the hundred days offensive they really didnt, now had the war continued into 1919 they probably would have. but in 1918 the american offensive was essentially a sideshow, causing far less material harm to the germans than the anglo french offensive further south.

the impact of the americans was to hammer home the idea to the germans that the pressure was only going to get greater, the legwork and the real killing was done by the british and french.

this is not to disrespect the americans who fought bravely if with a tactical naivete long since beaten out of all the other powers, they simply werent yet present in large enough numbers nor experienced enough yet to equal the impact the british or french had, not before the germans had collapsed. Had the war continued then they would undoubtably have played a larger role, but in military terms the british and french did far more to bring about the defeat of germany

...

Neat pic, thanks. Fuck I love /his. I've been such a cock-muncher... I bought into all the /pol memes and I typically play devils advocate for any subject... Now I feel like a piece of trash for ever trying to defend any aspect of Hitlers motivations or strategy :(.

>with a tactical naivete long since beaten out of all the other powers
This is because they were explicitly told by their commanding officers to ignore the advise from British and French officers, on the grounds that "they haven't won the war, so what do THEY know lmao?"

They didn't

true, naive might have been charitable, arrogance would be equally fitting.

the fact that both the allies and germans had spent 4 years fighting eachother and constantly evolving tactics and counter tactics might have been worth noting, instead the AEF fought more like the french of 1914

Not according to Ludendorf who blamed the malaise his soldiers were experiencing on the "sheer numbers of Americans". The french army was in a questionable state due to the mutinies of 1917, and the british were thrown back during the spring offensive and one of thier armies suffered a breakdown of sorts. Face it Eurofags; you needed us.

and yet the french had recovered by 1918 and the british while thrown back, also had endured and defeated the german offensive.

as for ludendorf, anything he says regarding the german defeat needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, the man also was the origin of the stab in the back myth, and tried to blame his defeat on anything but the fact that his opponents were ultimately better than him.

the 'sheer number of americans' was the fact that the germans knew that their enemies numbers were only going to go up from then while theirs went down, the americans were still the smallest contingent of the great powers, and the least effective on the battlefield -again this was principally a experience issue- so germans in the field werent experiencing 'sheer numbers of americans' the principal fighting was still being done by the british and french

>as for ludendorf, anything he says regarding the german defeat needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, the man also was the origin of the stab in the back myth, and tried to blame his defeat on anything but the fact that his opponents were ultimately better than him.
You forgot to mention he also believed the Germans could win in 1918 a decisive victory, cause such a great blow to the entente that they'd be forced to sue for peace with Germans having a favourable position, the man was straight up delusional by 1917-18. Fuck he literally argued that the reason why quotas weren't being met is because the Germans weren't working hard enough rather than the resource shortage.

>fund and support Russian commies leading to the Russian revolution
>privately admit the war is fucked
>but deny that because you haven't figured out an exit strategy yet
>this delays the end of the war
>wait...
>Hi Hinden(((burg))), Hi Willy, lets install the SPD as fall guys and back the fuck away from the civilian government
>immediately after impressing upon them the need for surrender start backpedalling
>this further delays the end of the war
>sailors riot thanks to the Seekriegsleitung's autistic plans for a suicide cruise
>this foments widespread unrest, government collapses
>oops.jpg
>Stab-in-the-Back myth literally coined when a fellow dinner party guest desperately wants to summarise your endless excuse making for losing the war
>now you have a catchy phrase to explain away the loss, take it home
>get caught at the Beer Hall Putsch
>lol I didn't know what was happening
>somehow this works
>in fact, somehow it all works, and 100 years later people are still blaming da joos for everything
How did this absolute madman get away with so much?

Germany's situation was so desperate they were literally making propaganda claiming the British population was starving harder than the Germans were just to keep their shitty country from not chimping out (Even though they literally had 200,000 strong worker strikes around the country). Germans literally wanted to mobilize 16 year olds for extra manpower to be used in the war effort. Some of her industries were only working at 7% capacity.

He also bragged about having incendiary bombs that would've set aflame the entirety of Paris and Berlin but coincidentally didn't bother using them.

London not Berlin* Fuck

the situation was similar for every combatant power, some like 33 percent of those who were 19 to 22 when the war broke out were wiped out. The germans also had a million men in the east they could throw in if necessary. Without America, you assholes would have kept on butchering each other.

interesting question user
I wonder why

It's not a matter of how many men you can throw, it's a matter of keeping your war industry alive, you can throw 20,000,000 men but if they have no bullets, no rifles, hell, if the locomotives are overstretched and you can't even transport your troops due to coal shortages and blockades, what good can you do? And even then you need to send men to coal mines and factories just to keep the frontlines supplied, weakening your fronts, and oops you need to also focus on resources that are constantly depleting when most of your Central powers allies have been fucked over by 1917-18 while the Entente can win a war of attrition over you. The Entente by early 1917 was in a much better state to wage a longer war than Germany was, Germany's self sufficiency was destroyed with peace demonstrations literally not even demanding annexationist stuff, just straight up peace, people are sick of starvation (turnip winter which affected Germany hard, other nations suffered it as well though), 1000 calories a day for the average German, crime rates doubling, worker strikes increasing, demanding more wages and more rations, just a hellholle. The union sacrée in France was much more effective than the German burgfrieden in this case, as the shitty Prussian hierarchy also didn't help with the protests for democracy.

your claim that the allies were in a better state than germany in 1917 is just plain wrong. The french army was by then near total collapse, the russians were done, and the third battle of ypres was a disaster, not to mention the caporetto battle that left the Italians in shambles. 1917 was Germanys best year.

Can I get a source on french army being near total collapse? I've mainly read up on Germany's internal policies

brainlet

>In a German General Staff publication, it was written that "Germany had been brought near to certain destruction (sicheren Untergang) by the Flanders battle of 1917

you exaggerate the state of the french army, it wasnt near collapse the mutinies were limited to a refusal to attack, even the worst of the mutinies didnt abandon its position and determination to defend.

and in germanys best year they never came close to actual victory

The french army mutinies of 1917, google it. Its well known now.

fuck off pierre, i can smell the surrender on you.

Why did his nation stab Jews in the back?

>google

The brainlet's desperate cry as he realizes he has no arguments.

Did you think before you typed that? Almost half the French divisions on the front refused to launch offensives, effectively ending France as an active warmaking power, they were fucked. From the beginning of the war to nearly the end the germans were fed on a diet of victory: Tannenburg, Gorlice tarnow, the defeat of the russians, Romanians, Italians trounced at caporetto, the demoralization of the french, the failure of the brits to gain any major ground, etc. Victory was around the corner right before the spring offensive. If it wasnt for massive numbers of Americans looming large the french and british would have forced into another year of butchery, if not outright defeat.

Refute me or fuck off. Oh wait you cant.

...

they refused offensives until the french army improved conditions, and convinced them that they had some hope of success in offensives, they had fully recovered by the spring of 1918.

and the germans had their share of defeats, notably they lost the fucking war, but also neither the somme nor verdun nor the ypres battles were victories for germany, as germany was bled white by them, nor was victory ever a possibility on the western front after 1914 and the german failure at first ypres

did you even think before you typed that