The Second Black Day of the German Army

Erich Ludendorf had already told the Kaiser that the war was lost on August 8, 1918, after "the black day of the German Army". What if, when he said on September 29, 1918, that the war was lost again, the Kaiser had him dismissed and replaced by another general (Groerner, perhaps?)?

I know that the war was lost but, with Ludendorf out of the map, would his successor attempted to resist without giving up to panic? Would have a civilian government been formed without Ludendorf to request it?
 
Ludendorff out the picture and a more confident Kaiser says to me that Wilhelm would not abdicate. Him staying on the throne could (and I don't know too much about Versailles so bear with me) potentially taper the punishment meted out to Germany as it was still a German Empire that, particularly the British, could sympathise with - Lloyd George especially would not be willing to set a precedent of ordering the ending of Monarchy or even forcing abdication as part of a peace settlement (Napoleon notwithstanding, but that's something slightly different - not a dynasty for example).

I'm sure there's lots of problems with that hypothesis, so feel free to point them out :)
 
One of the conditions imposed by the Allies was to have Kaiser Bill abdicating...

Furthermore, the Kaiser could be as secure of himself as he wanted, but if the army doesn't back him, as Groener told him plainly, there is nothing for him to do.



Perhaps I should add something more to the premise.

Would Ludendorf's replacement have the enough sangfroid to wait until the Allied attack got bogged down and he could see that there was no Allied breakthrough? Or, never mind who was the replacement, he would had asked the Kaiser to "save my army", too?
 
Ah, I do actually remember that from somewhere. I'm slow today :p

Re: Groener, I didn't realise he, like Ludendorff, would also tell Bill he'd lost the support of the Army (it's not in the OP).

As for holding on until the Allies don't/do break fully into Germany... if he did do that, and they did break into Germany and start smashing Germany proper, the Nazis 'stabbed in the back' logic would never get as strong as it did. If they hadn't broken through and had bogged down somewhere (unlikely, but maybe possible?) perhaps Wilhelm could have abdicated in favour of Wilhelm III, who now leads a peace delegation to the Allies and wrung slightly better terms than OTL out of them? I know they're not going to change that much (reparations especially), but maybe a land corridor through Danzig, or maybe even the presence of Germans at the conference would have been tolerated?
 
That's what I'm trying to get rid of, the "Dolchstoßlegende", plus the German government being the one to ask for surrender.
 
It was certainly asinine, even by Woodrow Wilson's low standards, to force the German military to admit defeat and the Kaiser to abdicate, then force acceptance of the terms of Versailles on the new and shaky Weimer Republic.

A much more sensible, ie, non-Wilson, approach would have been to impose the terms of Versailles on the Kaiser and then deliberately drop the most offensive parts to favor the new republic.
 
It was certainly asinine, even by Woodrow Wilson's low standards, to force the German military to admit defeat and the Kaiser to abdicate, then force acceptance of the terms of Versailles on the new and shaky Weimer Republic.

A much more sensible, ie, non-Wilson, approach would have been to impose the terms of Versailles on the Kaiser and then deliberately drop the most offensive parts to favor the new republic.

Very interesting point, indeed. After all, it had no sense that, being "Billy's war", as they argued it was, they doomed the Republic for something it had nothing to do with them -or not so much, the Burgfrieden was still there.
 
Top