It was quite difficult for me to find material online regarding this matter; the only article which I was able to find that was not hosted by revisionists of dubious sympathies was this one (PDF), a book review of C. Paul Vincent’s “The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919” (1985) in The Review of Austrian Economics.
The reviewer notes:
Also, as I said in my reply to RNATB, from what I know of World War I, I find it be a highly dubious proposition that British (and French) leaders were genuinely afraid of renewed German military resistance. The Allies took over 300,000 German prisoners in the Hundred Days Offensive, and had thrown the Germans nearly entirely off French soil, back to the city of Ghent in western Belgium. Regardless of the stupidity of the subsequent “stab-in-the-back” legend, the German High Command knew they were beaten. Any lingering doubts would have been mitigated by revolutions at home.
British troops certainly were. Now we can argue whether Britain should have fought against Germany in the first place, of course, but once they were…
I’ve read in multiple places food was allowed to be imported between the Armistice and Versailles. Is that not true, or is starving civilians code for something different?
So the German army was still occupying invaded territory? And should have been allowed to build its strength back up without any restrictions?
The Germans could have stopped the blockade immediately, and would have done if they were trully beaten. The way to do it, of course, as unconditional surrender.
Starving civilians is what happened. Food was allowed to be imported, but fertilizer wasn’t, and without the fertilizer, the Germans couldn’t grow enough food. In addition, with the end of the war, the blockade was tightened. so Germany could no longer fish in the Baltic.
But you’re right, food was allowed to be imported. The problem was that the Germans couldn’t pay for it, because of, mainly French, demands, that Germany’s gold supply couldn’t be spent, because it had to be reserved for reparations payments. Even though the armistice was signed in November, Germany didn’t start getting food supplies until March, primarily in the form of charity from the US and UK, over French objections.
My point wasn’t to claim that German civilians didn’t starve. Though I will admit to failure to feel a great degree of sympathy, given starving British civilians had been a German war aim.
But they didn’t starve because of the blockade. I assume fertilizer had a military use. And complaining that the French wouldn’t let the German’s spend their gold, and noting that the German food supplies came from UK & US charity, indicates why this is somewhat out of place in a thread about the most evil episode in British history.
And surrender was, of course, always an option for the Germans, but one they chose not to take.
They weren’t. One of the conditions of the armistice was that Germany withdraw from all their occupied territories and all territory west of the Rhine, which they did.
And the Germans couldn’t really surrender until there were surrender documents to sign. Writing the Versailles treaty took from November to April, and the German delegation arrived at the end of April, and signed in June.
Oh and Captain Amazing - thanks for linking to the terms of the Armistice. I’m kind of embarassed to realize after all these years I have never read it.
Amusingly enough, point 11 calls for the Unconditional Surrender of East Africa.
I’m not saying this is in any way the same as what I am suggesting for the Western front and Germany itself, it just tickled my funny bone a little to see it listed there given the conversation.
A small German force in German East Africa managed to create a situation in which the British had to commit significant forces in British East Africa (Kenya) when they would rather have not. The German force in East Africa was not defeated in battle.
I’m aware of that. I just thought it was amusing the Armistice described it as unconditional surrender when we had just been discussing whether unconditional surrender really existed as a concept at the time.
I don’t think the British gave a damn about the Belgians in 1914, as much as they didn’t want the Germans to be any more powerful in relation to themselves. So they made sure that a war that would have been shorter and localized went world-wide and lasted for years.
But that still wasn’t good enough. after Verdun and the Somme, German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg asked Woodrow Wilson and the pope to mediate an end to the war, returning as best as possible to the prewar status quo, with the British Empire as the top dog. But Lloyd George knew that the British hadn’t pushed themselves as far as they could; rationed their food as tightly or conscripted troops instead of relying on volunteers.
The British Empire was afraid less of a bitter, bloody victory than a negotiated peace. What does that say about it as an institution? If they’d been fighting Nazism in 1916, then annihilation of the enemy at whatever cost would be understandable. But this was an mirror empire with widow’s pensions and Christians missionaries, like themselves, and whose ruler who played dress-up with their own.
Except that the Military Service Act was introduced in January 1916, and conscription started in March 1916. The Battle of the Somme, which was indeed fought with a volunteer army, started on July 1, 1916.
It is therefore incorrect to claim that Britain had not yet conscripted troops.
I think it’s more that, when all of the countries got into the war and started going into debt to pay for it, they realized that if the war ended status quo ante, they wouldn’t be able to pay their war debts. They needed a victory to both justify the expense and so that they could get reparations to pay the debts they accrued. I think that was true of all the major combatants.
And also a victory to justify the cost in blood to their people. Ruling classes knew that defeats in war led to revolutions, and Europe had seen a boat load of them. None of the major participants in the Great War in 1916 were ever far away from one. I have little doubt that anything but a British victory would have lead to massive social unrest at home.
It all sounds cruel and stupid enough to be true (and I’m a Brit saying that) but I’m not very familiar with this period of history and I’m not willing to take it as true on your say-so.
I think that by making it a long war, the belligerent nations pretty much guaranteed social unrest. If it has been “over by Christmas”, the way people first claimed it would be, I don’t think you would have seen social unrest in any of the countries.
And a victorious Britain did see substantial social change (although of course nothing near to what happened in Germany, Russia or Austria). The war led to the passage of the Fourth Reform Act, which gave pretty much all men over 21 and all women over 30 the right to vote, and the war led to the destruction of the Liberals and legitimization of the Labour party.
I acknowledge your need for verification, but I was more specific than just “Germany wanted peace but the British turned them down.” And counter-debates that are no more than demaning “Cite, cite cite” have proven to be sucker games: once you do provide one, you only get “I’m still not convinced. Prove it harder! Harder!”
Nobody’s asking you to. But, to paraphrase a SDMB cliche, your post is my cite: as a Briton you can’t conceive of your country acting so arrogantly after 96 years of evolution resulting from its having been so. As an American, I wish I could say the same.
