Why did the Germans give up?

[Orwell1984]

Concentrating on a slightly later period but possibly still of interest to some in this thread is the following upcoming title from Bloomsbury Press



The Stab-in-the-Back Myth and the Fall of the Weimar Republic
A History in Documents and Visual Sources

August 2016

http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-stab-i ... 474227803/

Publisher Blurb

This unique sourcebook explores the Stab-in-the-Back myth that developed in Germany in the wake of World War One, analyzing its role in the end of the Weimar Republic and its impact on the Nazi regime that followed.

A critical development in modern German and even European history that has received relatively little coverage until now, the Stab-in-the-Back Myth was an attempt by the German military, nationalists and anti-Semites to explain how the German war effort collapsed in November 1918 along with the German Empire. It purported that the German army did not lose the First World War but were betrayed by the civilians on the home front and the democratic politicians who had surrendered. The myth was one of the foundation myths of National Socialism, at times influencing Nazi behaviour in the 1930s and later their conduct in the Second World War.

The Stab-in-the-Back Myth and the Fall of the Weimar Republic draws on German government records, foreign and domestic newspaper accounts, diplomatic reports, diary entries and letters to provide different national and political perspectives on the issue. The sourcebook also includes chapter summaries, study questions, and further reading lists, in addition to numerous visual sources and a range of maps, charts, tables and graphs. This is a vital text for all students looking at the history of the Weimar Republic, the legacy of the First World War and Germany in the 20th century.

Table of Contents
List of Illustrations
List of Charts
Introduction
1. The Food Problem
2. Blockade
3. The Labor Question
4. The January Strikes
5. Military Collapse
6. Whose Dolchstoß?
7. Did an English General Start the Myth?
8. The Hindenburg Testimony
9. The Ebert Libel Trial
10. The Munich Dolchstoß Trial
11. A Dolchstoß Consensus?
12. The Dolchstoßlegende and the Fall of the Weimar Republic
Bibliography
Index

[Futurist]

As for the "Stab-in-the-Back" Myth, as far as I know, that myth emerged due to the fact that Germany descended into revolution in October-November 1918 (due to the fact that the German sailors at Kiel refused to fight a suicidal naval battle and thus rebelled, after which point this rebellion spread to the rest of Germany) and experienced regime change as a result of this revolution (with the overthrow of the German monarchy and its replacement by the Weimar Republic) as well as due to the fact that some German generals genuinely (and very likely falsely) believed that Germany could have bled the Entente/Allies to exhaustion had it continued the war and/or due to the fact that some German generals wanted to avoid being blamed for Germany's defeat in World War I.

The stab in the back myth started long before the end of the war. Von Seeckt was referring to it in 1917. I have a vague recollection of earlier use, but its escaping me now.

This would certainly be interesting. Indeed, if possible, can you please try finding the source for this statement of yours?

Sure. From Wilhelm Deist's "The Military Collapse of the German Empire: the Reality Behind the Stab-in-the-Back Myth," (located in War in History vol. 3 (2) 1996) at pages 206-207 (emphasis supplied):

The sudden and chaotic collapse of a system hitherto opposed in principle only by a small political minority deprived the broad middle strata of their general political orientation. It thus prepared fertile ground for wild hypotheses and attempts at explanation, all of which served the purpose of suppressing or making tolerable the bitter and repugnant reality. The stab-in-the-back myth perfectly met this requirement. It used accustomed categories and was, even in its exaggerated form, not new. Major-General von Seeckt had already expressed it in the crisis of July 1917: 'What are we really fighting for? The home front has attacked us from behind, and therefore the war is lost'. 117 This distorting statement was now consciously used as a political weapon. In this area OHL also pointed the way when Ludendorff told officers of the General Staff on 29 September 'now those circles must be brought into the government ... whom we have above all to thank for having brought us to this point ... Let them now eat the broth they have cooked for us.’ 118 The shifting of responsibility for the disaster, long in preparation, now assumed concrete form. At the very moment of defeat the formula was discovered which helped to obscure among large sections of the population the recognition of the causes of collapse, and to give a propaganda ploy the appearance of reality. While recognizing with surprising clarity the real issues, the chairman of the Pan-German League stated to its executive committee on 19 October that ’the situation should be used for a fanfare against Jewry and the Jews as lightning conductors for all injustices’.’ 119 The stab-in-the-back myth was thus endowed with its devastating antisemitic force.

Thank you very much for sharing this source with us!

[JAG13]

Sounds pretty much like a standard definition of an executive such as the US president.

Actually no. A US POTUS has to get consent from the US Senate for his cabinet (Secretary or War, Sec Nav, todays Sec Def). He cannot arbitrarily make someone Secretary of war nor appoint a chief of staff of the US Army. He cannot control the funding for the military, the Congress hold the purse strings.

As President he is however Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. He can relieve any flag officer from command (they hold their commissions from the President) or demand the resignation of a Cabinet member at his pleasure.

The Kaiser didnt control the budget either that was the whole point I made, additionally the US president could pretty much appoint whomever he wanted, the recent US clown show is just that, recent, senate consent was pretty much a given.