In regads to WW1, why do establishment historians keep pushing

File: Prussia.png (98KB, 800x480px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x480px

It has to do with the 'stab in the back meme'.

If Ludendorff is seen as running the country than he couldn't be stabbed in the back by the people running the country because he was running the country.

Personally I'd think if Ludendorff said he was stabbed in the back, which he did,he probably felt that way.

It would have been alot easier for him to own the decision for armistace with the established government and media on his side than to decide to surrender than make up a story about being stabbed in the back and shitting all over his own massive decision to armistance.

The bigger picture is though if Ludendorff ran the country than the entire foundation of Nazism is wrong and based on a lie that Hitler and Ludendorff made up to trick people.

Its my opinion that promoting the stab in the back as a 'myth' is more likely to be propaganda from the US used in order to keep germany stable during occupation and to kill political nationalist sentiment there.

>>1317197
"Ludendorff and the general staff essentially ran the entire country during the war" when the exact same can be said about Churchill and his war cabinet in regards to britain during WW2?

Because Churchill was PM, and Ludendorff was not Chancellor/Kaiser. Are you pretending to be thick or what?

>>1317302
>Because Churchill was PM, and Ludendorff was not Chancellor/Kaiser
Monty and Brooke regularly told Churchill what was what and he generally deferred to their judgement.