There's plenty to dispute there. Germany begged for a ceasefire because her leaders knew defeat was imminent. They had lost a string of battles, were pushed back to the Hindenburg line and proved unable to hold it.CroGer wrote: ↑24 Jan 2022, 15:47I am not saying Germany would have won, but it just is a matter of fact that they were not militarily defeated and they ended the war because of an uprising. It also doesn't matter if they would have been militarily defeated in 1919, it only matters why they sued for peace in late 1918.
There is nothing to dispute here.
Even if that weren't the case, it's a peculiar mind-set that thinks a naval blockade isn't military action. The German psyche never really came to grips with that.
No, it's not factually incorrect.CroGer wrote: ↑24 Jan 2022, 15:47"After the war, some claimed that Germany had never truly been defeated on the battlefield. The country only capitulated because it was on its knees economically, laid low by the highly effective British Royal Navy’s blockade. The sanctions had prevented essential imports of war materials and, crucially, food. But, in truth, Germany supplied some 75 percent of its nutritional needs domestically. [...] And on the battlefield, Germany was well and truly beaten"
This is just factually incorrect, and is only repeated because the Nazis used the "Stab in the Back"-myth, and everything the Nazis ever said has to be wrong. [...]
If you read memoirs and diaries from that time, from German journalists, Generals, novelists and other people who's writings have survived, they all express that the capitutaion was a result of war weariness and fear of another "turnip winter". I am very sorry, but it does not matter what the British thought of the situation in the fall of 1918. The Germans acted, so only their motivation is important here.
It wasn't the German on the Clapham Omnibus who acted - it was the Supreme Command, the Kaiser, Chancellor, and Ludendorf. They asked for terms a month before the Sailors' Revolt. That Revolt and the subsequent uprisings and revolution were a direct result of being asked to continue to fight and die for a cause that was clearly lost.
It's a lot to add to the mix when you only have 6.000.000, they're deserting in droves, you have no reserves and your allies are falling like dominoes.
But yeah, you do have a point. The British, French and Italians really didn't need the help. They were already winning decisively.
Ah, after 'the stab in the back' meme comes the tide-turning Wunderwaffen. Quelle surprise.CroGer wrote: ↑24 Jan 2022, 15:47While the Germans did experience a collapse of morale after the failure of the spring offensive, the majority was still determined to stay in the fight, as can be read in many war memoirs. And even though the western allies had improved their tanks, the Germans were developing anti-tank weapons they had not used yet, but would become standard anti-tank weapons: the 3,7cm TAK, the 13,2mm MG TUF, the 20mm auto-cannon. The 3,7cm Tak is the predecessor of the "Heeres-Anklopfgerät" of WW2, the TUF is basically the Maxim-version of the 50 BMG-Browning M2, and the 20mm Auto-cannon is the predecessor of the famous Oerlikon 20mm auto-cannon. Looking at how much the allies put all their faith in their tanks with their 10mm armor plates, these AT-weapons and the speed in which Germany could produce them in 1918, the Allies can be glad they never found out what would have happened in 1919. At the time of the armistice they had produced 600 TAK, but they were all still in depots. So the pace of production was enormous.
They also were in the process of producing a, for it's time, very good tank, the LK II, in Sweden known as the Stridsvagn 21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3JECmaSLik
2.000 of them were on order for 1919. Cost of an LK II is hard to esimate, but it was probably 33% of the cost of a Renault FT, because they could build various parts from old trucks.
Dedicated anti-tank guns weren't really necessary at that time. Mines, anti-tank rifles, standard artillery and breakdowns were already enough. That's why the German command weren't interested in the idea of tanks until they saw how effective they were at Cambrai.
And that's why German tanks actually fielded amounted to 20 A7Vs. That was it. The LKII was still basically in the prototype stage - only the MG-armed variant got produced (again, in tiny numbers) and attempts at a gun carrying version were still in development, the planned 57mm gun proving to be too large for the tank. To say it was "a very good tank" is a massive stretch.
It was also a light tank like the Whippet, intended to exploit breakthroughs. Breakthroughs that Germany was incapable of making. Anyway, they had virtually no fuel to spare for tanks after the Bulgarian surrender and Romanian declaration of war.