A pretty good summary here, but I will have to quibble a little on the reasons behind Wilhelm's abdication.
While Wilson made it clear that his abdication was probably going to be a prerequisite for peace negotiations, the final impetus for everyone around him deciding that he had to go was when, as a result of the German admiralty deciding to take the fleet on a death ride into the North Sea because of the deteriorating situation, the sailors mutinied because they didn't want to die pointlessly, at which point Germany began falling apart internally. Realizing that Germany wouldn't survive if the war lasted much longer, the guys in charge basically told Wilhelm that the army no longer supported him, and at that point he bowed to the inevitable.
Also worth noting, by the way, is that if you look at the deliberations of the German high command and the upper-level political leadership, they spent late September to early November trying to figure how to avoid being the ones who surrendered to the Allies. One wonders what might have happened if the admirals had decided to not even float the "death ride" idea and spark the sailor's revolt. It's not implausible that the Germans might have dithered until the Allies outran their supply lines and had to stop for the winter, which would have given them months to put the army back together, further harness the lands taken in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and delude themselves into believing that they could pull it out.
Then, in spring 1919, the Allies break the German army, take the war into Germany, and march all the way to Berlin. Maybe history looks a little different then.
The Allies were definitely expecting the war to go on well into 1919, but given the condition of the German army, I don't think that would've happened. The German army had retreated past all their prepared defensive lines, and their best soldiers had been killed in the Spring 1918 Offensive, so I don't think they would have been able to put themselves back together in the time the Allies might reasonably have given them.
Maybe, if the civil government (whether the new Republic or Kaiser Wilhelm) doesn't blink first and surrender, they might try - but I don't think they'd manage it. Though if they tried, history would in fact look different.
Machiavelli was right that you should never do an enemy a small injury. France treated Germany badly enough to seriously anger them, but not enough to damage their long-term war making ability. And they paid for it.
France declared war on Germany in 1870 and invaded them…over a telegram. It’s the equivalent of France declaring war on the USA Today because they felt Donald Trump sent a mean tweet, then immediately invading the east coast.
After a series of humiliating defeats Germany took a province that was at least half german and gave them reparations they were able to pay in five years.
The occupation of the Ruhr was a disaster. France did try to impose Versailles, and it proved unworkable. It nearly brought the nazies to power in the 20s. Nobody wanted to try and do it again in the 30s.
The problem is that France was a dramatically weaker country than Germany and could not be expected to keep Germany down.
A pretty good summary here, but I will have to quibble a little on the reasons behind Wilhelm's abdication.
While Wilson made it clear that his abdication was probably going to be a prerequisite for peace negotiations, the final impetus for everyone around him deciding that he had to go was when, as a result of the German admiralty deciding to take the fleet on a death ride into the North Sea because of the deteriorating situation, the sailors mutinied because they didn't want to die pointlessly, at which point Germany began falling apart internally. Realizing that Germany wouldn't survive if the war lasted much longer, the guys in charge basically told Wilhelm that the army no longer supported him, and at that point he bowed to the inevitable.
Also worth noting, by the way, is that if you look at the deliberations of the German high command and the upper-level political leadership, they spent late September to early November trying to figure how to avoid being the ones who surrendered to the Allies. One wonders what might have happened if the admirals had decided to not even float the "death ride" idea and spark the sailor's revolt. It's not implausible that the Germans might have dithered until the Allies outran their supply lines and had to stop for the winter, which would have given them months to put the army back together, further harness the lands taken in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and delude themselves into believing that they could pull it out.
Then, in spring 1919, the Allies break the German army, take the war into Germany, and march all the way to Berlin. Maybe history looks a little different then.
The Allies were definitely expecting the war to go on well into 1919, but given the condition of the German army, I don't think that would've happened. The German army had retreated past all their prepared defensive lines, and their best soldiers had been killed in the Spring 1918 Offensive, so I don't think they would have been able to put themselves back together in the time the Allies might reasonably have given them.
Maybe, if the civil government (whether the new Republic or Kaiser Wilhelm) doesn't blink first and surrender, they might try - but I don't think they'd manage it. Though if they tried, history would in fact look different.
Machiavelli was right that you should never do an enemy a small injury. France treated Germany badly enough to seriously anger them, but not enough to damage their long-term war making ability. And they paid for it.
France declared war on Germany in 1870 and invaded them…over a telegram. It’s the equivalent of France declaring war on the USA Today because they felt Donald Trump sent a mean tweet, then immediately invading the east coast.
After a series of humiliating defeats Germany took a province that was at least half german and gave them reparations they were able to pay in five years.
The occupation of the Ruhr was a disaster. France did try to impose Versailles, and it proved unworkable. It nearly brought the nazies to power in the 20s. Nobody wanted to try and do it again in the 30s.
The problem is that France was a dramatically weaker country than Germany and could not be expected to keep Germany down.
I think that after WW1, Britain could have prevented WW2 by treating Germany decently. My full argument is here:
https://pontifex.substack.com/p/the-treaty-of-versailles