Armistice in 1916?

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Annelie
Member
Posts: 5053
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 03:45
Location: North America

Armistice in 1916?

#1

Post by Annelie » 03 Jul 2007, 16:05

While reading a book I came across the statement that
Germany offered an armistice in 1916 but the British
and French refused?

Can anyone please explain if this is correct and perhaps
why not?

Admit that I know very little about this war.

Mad Zeppelin
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 08 Sep 2004, 21:05
Location: Germany

#2

Post by Mad Zeppelin » 03 Jul 2007, 17:10

Not an armistice, Germany offered to enter peace talks with the Entente powers. But Entente war aims could not be achieved in an negotiated peace, they required victory. Thus the Entente refused.


tjohn
Member
Posts: 596
Joined: 27 Feb 2007, 16:37
Location: New Jersey

#3

Post by tjohn » 03 Jul 2007, 17:45

MZ,

What was Germany prepared to give up in exchange for peace? A-L? If Germany gave up A-L in exchange for peace and whatever the front was in the East, it would have been a pretty good peace for Germany. And I would imagine that France would have been sorely tempted by this deal even if England was not.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

#4

Post by Terry Duncan » 03 Jul 2007, 19:45

Germany was prepared to give up very little, if anything (it all depends on how you look at things), as whilst Belgium was to have independance, it was to have a pro-German government, Alsasc-Lorraine was to remain German, although offers of a vote on soveriegnty was possible (although as many of the ethnic French had left, it was an offer that was certainly stacked in the Germans favour), and that the Germans were not going to pay reparations for all the damage done and the iron and coal taken from the Briey industrial area whilst it was occupied. Even when preparing this, the Germans did not expect it to be acceptable, but thought it would make a good PR deal with the neutral nations.

Sort of like a smash and grab raid that had gone wrong, but the perpetrators offering to go away if everyone else was willing to forget it and allow them to then re-instal all the broken windows and bill the parties that had suffered damage! If France had offered Germany peace based upon a return of Alsasc-Lorraine and full payment for damages, the Germans would have found this just as unacceptable while they were sitting on land that would have to be given up.

Once the war had started, a peace based upon status quo-anti was very unlikely to be acceptable to either side, not only because they had developed aims in return for the huge sacrifices made, but because no alliance was willing to allow the other side to achieve a peace that would be acceptable to its people. Once the long feared general war had started, Europe was changed forever, and mostly not for the better.

The British position was that any negotiations must take pace only when the German army retreated from all the Belgian and French soil it occupied. This was rather a problem for the Germans to accept for obvious reasons, as they had little to gain by complying with this.

Terry

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002, 14:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

#5

Post by viriato » 03 Jul 2007, 20:51

Terry Duncan what a biased post you have just made, the baaaaad Gerrrrmanns contra the good guys - the Entente. :lol: :lol: :lol:

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002, 14:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

#6

Post by viriato » 03 Jul 2007, 21:01

Tjohn wrote:
What was Germany prepared to give up in exchange for peace? A-L?


And just why should Germany give up "A-L", a territory that was 85% German? 8O Was the UK prepared to give up Ireland - a territory by the way that was say 70% Irish? The history of 1916 tells us differently, I believe. :roll:

tjohn
Member
Posts: 596
Joined: 27 Feb 2007, 16:37
Location: New Jersey

#7

Post by tjohn » 03 Jul 2007, 21:31

Viriato,

My question was more one of what each side was willing to offer in order to achieve an end to the fighting. Neither side was defeated in 1916 although the Germans, by their own calculus, were in a war they couldn't win. If Germany could have achieved peace by withdrawing from Belgium and A-L in exchange for isolating/defeating Russia, it would have been a great deal for Germany - a bit hard to sell domestically perhaps, but a definite win.

The question of whether or not Germany was good or bad was settled in Belgium in 1914 when Germany sacrificed any moral high ground she might have had and then some. Whether or not Germany was the victim of some Entente scheme became largely irrelevant except to historians from that point on. Of course, if Germany had won, she could have written the history books more in her favor.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

#8

Post by Terry Duncan » 04 Jul 2007, 00:17

Viriato the post is not biased, simply a reflection of what was on offer at the time and its terms. How about looking at the very issue that had pre-occupied the British government right up until the week that WWI broke out, it was devolution for Ireland, and where any boundaries would need to be made. Without the intervention of war, there could have been a lot of trouble over this, but also no revolution and home rule without the bloodshed of 1916.

The post is hardly suggesting that the German position was a bad one, they sat upon a large percentage of French industrial areas, almost all of Belgium and parts of Russia, and were not about to accept that they should go back to the exact situation prior to WWI. However, the offer of peace talks was a simple propaganda move and not expected to be taken up by the Entente, and not only modern writers are of this opinion, but most of the German government at the time knew the terms were unacceptable, and were designed to be such at the request of the military who still hoped to win the war.

Your point to tjohn about why should Germany give up A-L is the subject of most of German problems from the period they took it from France. They had created an enemy they always planned another war with (see Zuber for Moltke the Elder asking for a second French war in 1878 to prevent France from ever again becoming a Great Power, simply as they could present a threat to Germany in the future!), and who they knew would almost certainly take sides against them in any future war, thus forcing Germany to contemplate various three way or two front wars, including France and Austria against Germany for a period. It was a poisoned chalice from the moment it was taken, and of little military worth for german planning as Moltke the Elder also concluded.

Germany didnt have to give it back or indeed make any concessions in 1916, but then again, the Entente did not have to agree to the German terms either.

Terry

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#9

Post by Peter H » 04 Jul 2007, 04:38

It must be remembered that Germany also made the peace talk offer flush from its victory against Rumania.

Secondly supporters of the unrestricted submarine warfare policy could say afterwards--see we tried for peace but victory cannot be achieved on land.

Dave Bender
Member
Posts: 3533
Joined: 24 Apr 2006, 22:21
Location: Michigan U.S.A.

German victory cannot be achieved on land

#10

Post by Dave Bender » 04 Jul 2007, 13:58

With the benefit of hindsight I think Germany could have achieved victory on land in 1916. Gen. Falkenhayn threw the chance away by attacking Verdun in early 1916 rather then following up the hugely successful Gorlice-Tarnow offensive of 1915. Prior to the 1916 Verdun attack the German army losses were relatively modest compared to the objectives achieved. That perception changed after Verdun, where the German army suffered lots of casualties with nothing to show for it. Achieving a 2 to 1 kill ratio against the French infantry meant nothing as France had an endless quantity of colonial cannon fodder to draw upon, armed with weapons purchased by American loans.

If Germany had skipped Verdun and opted for a follow up attack against Russia, I think they could have brought the Entente to the bargaining table in the summer of 1916.

chronos20th
Member
Posts: 849
Joined: 24 Jan 2004, 19:44
Location: UK.

1916 peace Offer

#11

Post by chronos20th » 04 Jul 2007, 15:11

The Imperial German did in fact make a geniune peace offer in autumn 1916 based on the status quo ante bellum and withdrawal from Belgium.

The Entente turned in down flat, because as mad zeppelin explains the Entente's War Aims could only be gained by total victory, making an incredibly long list of demands and territorial demands.

This was in response to Woodrow Wilson asking the two sides to state their terms for an armistice.

I was shocked when I discovered this.

It is unlikely Imperial Germany and Austro-Hungary could have brought the Entente to the bargaining table in 1916 even with Russia forced to sue for peace, as Britain was bent on total victory and with American huge loans and the flow of American munitions could easily pressure France to continue. Even in 1917 with the ruling elite convinced they might lose the war they refused to do it.

We are back with the Wicked Kaiser and the Prussian Militarists with TD.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#12

Post by Peter H » 04 Jul 2007, 16:01

In December 1916 after both sides were asked by Wilson to declare their terms the Kaiser commented:

"They(the Entente) began the war,they have been beaten all along the line,they must state their intentions first...I go to no conference.Certainly not one presided over by him[Wilson]."

Finally in January 1917 Wilson was informed confidentially by the US German Ambassador Bernstorff on what terms Germany would make peace:
...restitution of the part of upper Alsace occupied by the French..gaining of a frontier that would protect Germany and Poland economically and strategically against Russia..restitution of German colonies...restitution of those parts of France occupied by Germany under reservation of strategical and economic changes of the frontier and financial compensations...restoration of Belgium under special guaranty for the safety of Germany which would have to be decided on by negotiations with Belgium..economic compensation for territories exchanged and for German business concerns and private persons who suffered by the war..abandonment of all economic agreements and measure which would form an obstacle to normal commerece and intercourse after the conclusion of peace..the freedom of the seas...
Peace Moves and U-Boat Warfare,K.E.Birnbaum,Stockholm,1958


Note that Poland was to be retained as a German dependent state,Belgium to be pro-German.The impression given is that Germany saw herself bargaining from a position of strength.
Last edited by Peter H on 04 Jul 2007, 16:03, edited 1 time in total.

tjohn
Member
Posts: 596
Joined: 27 Feb 2007, 16:37
Location: New Jersey

#13

Post by tjohn » 04 Jul 2007, 16:02

The Imperial German did in fact make a geniune peace offer in autumn 1916 based on the status quo ante bellum and withdrawal from Belgium.
Genuine in the minds of Germans perhaps. Now, why would the Entente be interested in this offer unless they felt themselves defeated?

Dave Bender
Member
Posts: 3533
Joined: 24 Apr 2006, 22:21
Location: Michigan U.S.A.

Brought the Entente to the bargaining table in 1916

#14

Post by Dave Bender » 04 Jul 2007, 16:06

It is unlikely Imperial Germany and Austro-Hungary could have brought the Entente to the bargaining table in 1916 even with Russia forced to sue for peace
This is something we will never know. But knocking Russia out of the war in 1916 would have vastly improved the German bargaining position.

It might also have made the U.S. think twice about declaring war on Germany in April 1917. In early 1917 the Wellington House controlled American press was giving the impression that Germany was losing the war. Woodrow Wilson was eager to get American troops to France so he would have a seat at the peace treaty conference. But if Russia is forced to quit the war in 1916 not even the most creative British propaganda experts can spin that story into an Entente victory. The American congress might not be so eager to enter a war where American troops are practically guaranteed to suffer 100s of thousands of casualties.

tjohn
Member
Posts: 596
Joined: 27 Feb 2007, 16:37
Location: New Jersey

#15

Post by tjohn » 04 Jul 2007, 16:10

Dave,

It is curious, isn't it, that even after enjoying success in Russia, I guess the myth of the unbeatable Russian masses and depth persisted in the minds of the German planners. A defeat of Russia in 1916 would certainly have lowered spirits in France and England. What you are suggesting is actually a variant of focusing on Russia in the first place.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”