Paul Von Hindenburg's Testimony Analysis

424 Words2 Pages
I found the concept of Germany “stabbing” its army in the back to be very interesting. It is apparent in both Paul von Hindenburg’s Testimony before the Parliamentary Investigatory Committee and the epilogue of General Ludendorff’s War Memories. Both are very dramatic in the language and tones that they use. Neither show evidence of taking any part of the blame for Germany’s defeat. In both of these readings the government is the blame for Germany’s severe loss. In Hindenburg’s Testimony, I personally don’t believe he actually gives any realistic reasoning for his opinion. He talks about how the government was manipulative in the way in which they made military decisions, however, he doesn’t actually give any evidence of this. He only really argues that the government restricted their ability to become stricter and more disciplined. One part of the reading that actually made me laugh was reading the lines that said “(Commotion and shouting)”. I could only image the actual commotion and shouting that occurred when Hindenburg was publicly placing the blame of Germany’s loss on people other than the military. In General Ludendorff’s Memories were very eloquently written. It was clear that he truly believed that he, his military associates, and the German people were victims of the German government. It is obvious that he strategically uses certain language to describe the German people and soldiers as…show more content…
Germany’s loss can be contributed to many factors, including the poor actions of the military. However, these men are still able to persuade people to agree with their viewpoint of the war. As discussed in class, these men blamed many other groups for the down fall of Germany and these tactics would later be used by Hitler to persuade his followers. I find it fascinating to learn through the context of history how easily people can be persuaded, even by things that are obviously
Open Document