90 years since the end of WWI
Peter Hoskin 11:51am
Today marks the 90th anniversary of Armistice Day and the formal end of World War One. I quote from the climax of Norman Stone's stunning work, WWI - A Short History:
"Meanwhile, as German morale was collapsing, the final crisis was precipitated by another act of desperation. In a weird descant upon the navy-army rivalry that had done so much to weaken the [German] war effort, the naval authorities resolved on a last, mad move. Captain von Levetzow, chief of staff of the navy, could see the likelihood that Germany's great ships would be interned, none of them left for the eventual reconstitution of the Reichsmarine. Better, he thought, 'immortal fame at the bottom of the ocean', and orders went out on 27 October for the High Seas Fleet to put to sea in the general direction of the Thames Estuary. The 80,000 soldiers and stokers were not enthusiastic about the bottom of the ocean. They mutinied at Kiel, then at Lubeck and Wlihelmshaven, and insurrection spread to Cologne, then Munich, where an actor took over. There was now an air of Russia, with workers' and soldiers' councils being formed. The Social Democrats, already in government under Prince Max, knew that, if they were to avoid a Bolshevik revolution, certain things would have to be done. The war would have to be stopped forthwith and the Kaiser would have to go. The generals told him as much, and on 9 November he abdicated (escaping to Holland) just as the republic was being declared in Berlin. In any case, with the country in chaos, the time had come for an immediate armistice. A deputation made its way to Foch's headquarters in the forest of Compiegne, and the guns were stopped at 11am on 11 November. The terms were harsh: Germany would not be able to fight again. The Allies took the Rhine. There was no occupation of Germany - as things turned out, a fatal decision. But it was over."
Previous
old sailor
November 11th, 2008 12:47pm Report this commentso stunning he manages to call 80,000 sailors "soldiers." Dear God, if the rest of it is that sloppy you may as well read AJP Taylor- at least his lunatic prejudice was elegantly written.
Charles
November 11th, 2008 1:02pm Report this commentNorman Stone is commonly cited by Turkish ultra-nationalists to refute the Armenian genocide allegations. He is not reliable.
TrevorsDen
November 11th, 2008 2:50pm Report this commentA terrible sacrifice which made the world safe for some ignorant BBC hack to spell wreaths as 'reefs'.
See Guido / Dale.
Is it any wonder that Brown feels safe treating us as thick as two short planks?
On a more serious note - it should not be forgotten that in November 1918 the British/Empire armies were the main effective fighting force taking the war to the Germans. It would have been different in 1919 but thanks to the effort in 1918 that was not necessary.
The British Army in 1918 was probably the finest army we have ever put into the field. It was certainly the only mass continental sized army we have ever raised.
And for those who still think that this was some uniquely incompetently managed and terrible event .... just look at the daily death rate for the Western front and then compare it with the North West Europe campaign 1944-45. You will not see much difference.
Anthony
November 11th, 2008 4:45pm Report this comment@Stunning'? I don't think so.
David Lindsay
November 11th, 2008 5:00pm Report this commentWhat they fought and died for is not, in fact, being fought and died for Afghanistan.
No one even pretends that it is being fought and died for in Iraq.
And it is what we fought, and some of our people died fighting, against in Yugoslavia, where we lined up with those who wore (and wear) black shirts in deference to their SS fathers and grandfathers, and who were led in Bosnia by a Wahhabi rabble-rouser and erstwhile SS recruitment sergeant, one of the very few people to whom the term "Islamofascist" is literally applicable.
Furthermore, although I ferociously defend the place of Christianity in our national life, I do have misgivings about the role of the churches in Armistice Day events.
The Second World War was one thing, but the First was quite another, and the very considerable number of conscientious objectors (leaving aside whether they were right or wrong) was disproportionately motivated by Christianity of an unusual seriousness.
The strong participation of the Free Churches, and perhaps above all of the Methodists, seems particularly odd, considering that no mention is ever, ever made of those who held fast to the Nonconformist pacifist tradition of Lloyd George himself during what was then the very recent Boer War, but who nevertheless did sterling, invaluable work as medical orderlies and other things.
Does anyone know of a monument to, for example, the Friends [Quaker] Ambulance Brigade, or the Friends' War Victims' Relief Committee? There really ought to be one, unveiled by the Queen.
The Second World War was one thing.
But the First was quite another.
Ulfur
November 11th, 2008 5:00pm Report this commentReading the penultimate sentence of the quoted text by dr. Stone, I cannot help fundamentally disagreeing.
An occupation of Germany would have ensured a German revolution. Since experience certainly supports the the belief that an angry, united Germany is difficult to defeat in land-based warfare, It may be considered fortunate that an angry Communist Germany, allied with the Soviet Union, was an experience that the world was spared.
Status quo ante bellum would have been the most fortunate ending of the war, at least where Germany was concerned.
Such an outcome would have prevented the political climate which spawned Hitler's NSDAP, as well as underlining the futility of the loss of life on both sides, rather than contributing to its denial.
John Thomas
November 11th, 2008 6:21pm Report this commentDavid Lindsay - Did you see Ian Hislop's excellent programme last night, about exactly the people/organisations you mention. If you missed it, I'm sure it is viewable on the internet. It got me thinking that there is a possible distinction (in some circumstances) between Pacifist and Conscientious Objector.
euSSR GO HOME
November 11th, 2008 7:33pm Report this commentWell.
I heard a report on a respected US radio station today. Some semi-literate Asian female is their leading newsreader:-
sarko and Britain's Prince Charles visited a WWI memorial in France today - where the French and the Germans fought WWI. The last survivors of both forces died this year.
If my family hadn't done their share in WWI, etc; and if I weren't old enough to have previously heard of the Prince and Camilla, Duchess of 'Corn Wall' - I'd have thought they went just to sympathize with the people who won the war.
Meconnaissance, Reinscription (especially of history), and Trivialization ... big techniques in Deconstruction-Marxism.
James J
November 11th, 2008 10:36pm Report this commentIn 1918 the Germans decided they needed to break the British army before the USA was able to field a force capable of tilting the war inevitably against them. The British army like their own was the only major one left whose morale had not been broken. Thus the Kaiserschlacht was launched. Only the third major offensive of the war by the Germans.
British morale held but the Germans had given everything they had. Prisoner figures show the breakdown of morale.157, 047 Germans surrendered to the British between 30 July and the 21 October 1918.
Prisoner to casualty ratios are one way of measuring morale. The figures for WW1 are: German 9.0%, Austria-hungary 31.8%, Turkey 17.2%, French 11.6%, Italian 25.8%, Russia 51.8%, Portugal 37.2%, and Britain 6.7%
Back to top