WI: German Surrender in WWI Not Accepted, Germany invaded

What if the German Surrender wasn't accepted in 1918, in WWI, and Germany was instead invaded? What would the consequences of this be short term and long term?
 
The war was coming to an end ievitably, the people were weary of it all, the shock and horror was just too much. German Surrender was happily accepted, with all terms agreed upon. Nobody wanted more from Germany, they were already given the blame and would be severely humiliated and stripped clean. There is no way any country would be willing to "invade" Germany. The soldiers had surrendered, nobody would stop them from entering the country if they wanted, they couldn't be stopped after th surrender anyway. Whatever reason the Allies have to enter with full force, its not worth it and totally unethical.

There is simply no reason.
 
The French and British were too exhausted to take it to Berlin and America would have had more say over the peace terms, hense Germany was defeated not conquered.
 
I wouldn't say that the Entente got everything they wanted out of Versailles, but whatever they didn't get was symptomatic of disagreements among themselves as opposed to what couldn't be extracted from Germany. That being the case, they didn't need a better bargaining position than the one they had. And since they couldn't go so far as to conquer Germany, better bargaining is all that continued hostilities could offer them.

Now, one other thing that comes up in these discussions is the idea that it would somehow kill the stab in the back narrative. I don't believe this, because it was more of a function of a number of factors, the main one being the sheer, intense shock that the German people experienced going from a propaganda-line insistence from government that the war was going to be won, to suddenly having lost overnight. That, combined with the army's need to scapegoat somebody else (the SPD), caused the narrative to take shape. So the "the army was never defeated in the field" line had less to do with reality and more to do with the transition from propaganda to acceptance of the situation on the ground, plus the tension between the military and the SPD. With both of those still present, the political discussion will run the same way.
 
Invading armies would strip German factories of high-tech machine tools and chemical plants. Key workers would be allowed to chose between living in a devastated Germany or a comfortable career in one of the victorious countries.

France would annex all of Alsace, Lorraine, Sarr and the Rhineland.
Belgium would "offer assistance" to couple of extra counties along their eastern border.
Denmark would reclaim Schleswig and Holstein.

Poland and Russia would claim several provinces along Russia's eastern borders.

Austria would lose the most troublesome provinces along their southern and eastern borders.
Troublesome Hungarian nobles would gain home-rule. Hungarian peasants would still be as miserable as before the war.

Central powers would need 30 or more years to rebuild industry to the point that they could consider invading neighbouring countries.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Allied armies would revolt if they found out the Germans surrendered and their generals refused to accept it. Now if the Germans refused Allied armistice terms in 1918 then the fight goes on, but Germany was falling apart into communist uprisings, so were literally unable to continue, which is why they accepted ANY terms the Allies offered OTL. What happened IOTL was the Germans asked for the armistice, the Allies gave them really harsh ones, the Germans accepted because they had no choice, so the war ended. Then when the terms the Germans thought were intolerable were offered in 1919 at Versailles, they had to accept because armistice terms meant the Allies held German Ruhr industry and Rheinland bridgeheads, while the army was pretty much been disbanded; continued war was impossible while the German civil war wrapped up.
 
One twist that might prolong the fighting would be for the Communists to gain the upper hand in parts of Germany, or even all of it. With the Entente providing aid to fight the Bolsheviks in Russia, they may aid in putting down the Reds in Germany.
 
The Allied armies would revolt if they found out the Germans surrendered and their generals refused to accept it. Now if the Germans refused Allied armistice terms in 1918 then the fight goes on, but Germany was falling apart into communist uprisings, so were literally unable to continue, which is why they accepted ANY terms the Allies offered OTL. What happened IOTL was the Germans asked for the armistice, the Allies gave them really harsh ones, the Germans accepted because they had no choice, so the war ended. Then when the terms the Germans thought were intolerable were offered in 1919 at Versailles, they had to accept because armistice terms meant the Allies held German Ruhr industry and Rheinland bridgeheads, while the army was pretty much been disbanded; continued war was impossible while the German civil war wrapped up.
This. Plus the war-weary Germans now have a reason to fight and make the invasion as bloody as possible.
 
This would not be considered "honorable" by the winning side and would tarnish their victorious image. Ergo, it's not going to happen.
 
There's a very real chance you'd see a full scale revolt or mass desertions in the British and French armies. The French already mutinied once after all. And at the utmost extreme, well... When the Americans have the only intact army, they're the only ones with any real influence over the peace terms, you know?
 
Invading armies would strip German factories of high-tech machine tools and chemical plants. Key workers would be allowed to chose between living in a devastated Germany or a comfortable career in one of the victorious countries.

Flooding the Entente countries with goods their own workers have not produced sounds like a recipe for mass unemployment - as if that wasn't bad enough in the interwar years.
 
.

Poland and Russia would claim several provinces along Russia's eastern borders.

Russia would claim nothing, they already had an armistice and their own revolution going on.

and i think you either mean Russia's western borders or Germany's eastern borders.
 
There's a very real chance you'd see a full scale revolt or mass desertions in the British and French armies. The French already mutinied once after all. And at the utmost extreme, well... When the Americans have the only intact army, they're the only ones with any real influence over the peace terms, you know?


See the following from Haig's diary.

Wednesday January 2 [1918]. After lunch I motored to Buckingham Palace - - I told the King that it was very desirable to tell the Army in a few unambiguous sentences , what we are fighting for. The Army is now composed of representatives of all classes in the Nation, and many are most intelligent and think things out. They don't care whether France has Alsace and Italy Trieste; they realise that Britain entered the war to free Belgium and save France. Germany is now ready, we have been told, to give all we want in these respects [1]. So it is essential that some statement should be made which the soldier can understand and approve of. Few of us feel that the "democratising of Germany" is worth the loss of a single Englishman. - - -".


"Saturday October 19. - - - I was asked what the attitude of the Army would be if we stuck out for stiff terms, which enemy then refuses, and war goes on. I reminded the P.M. of the situation a year ago when there were frequent demands for information as to what we were fighting for; he (the P.M.) then made a speech and stated our war aims. The British Army had done most of the fighting latterly, and everyone wants to have done with the war, provided we get what we want. I therefore advise that we only ask in the armistice for what we intend to hold, and that we set our faces against the French entering Germany to pay off old scores. In my opinion, under the supposed conditions, the British Army would not fight keenly for what is really not its own affair. - - -"

[1] In fact it turned out that the Germans were not yet ready to meet those conditions. But by November they were, and Haig's attitude had not changed. While the second entry doesn't use the M-word anywhere, I kind of wonder whether he wasn't beginning to fear it if his men were pushed too far.
 
There was no reason OTL for the Allies not to accept armistice terms as the Allies dictated them, they got everything needed to eliminate German capability to resist and then dictated peace terms from that position of absolute strength. So something has to change. So this POD could only occur:

a) A stronger than OTL Germany with a government intact (perhaps no naval mutiny) and more supplies (perhaps no Hidenburg economic plan) tries to fight on to haggle for better armistice terms. Germany secures Brenner pass, maintains western front, pulls forces from east to watch south. In this case Germany either secures these better armistice terms or Allies crush just Germany in 1919. Hard to see where a crushed Germany ends up. America would have a large say in the victory, Communist threat looms, lots in flux.

b) Germany secures better armistice terms (perhaps Germany asks for terms August 1918 and takes them, or Bulgarian collapse doesn't happen OTL due to some delay) . A stronger Germany thinks in 1919 they can resist the dictated terms of Versailles treaty by resistance at that later point. Germany would probably have to play this well politically to succeed, i.e. we accept all these terms but these particular two items and will resist if those two are not reversed, vs we reject everything.

At a minimum the Allies would have to get the following armistice terms to stop fighting, Germany to withdraw from occupied territory, withdraw from Alsace Lorraine, surrender all submarines, all bombers, all heavy artillery > 150 mm, release POWs, blockade still in effect. If the Germans had some capability of resisting they could secure better armistice terms up to this level which still gives them some level of defensive power but gives security to the Allies.

As far as resisting the actual dictated peace terms, maybe they could fight for removal of the guilt clause, more specific details on reparation amounts, clear rules on plebiscites, particular details on post war military, etc. but anything more than that the Allies almost have to resume the advance.
 
See the following from Haig's diary.

Wednesday January 2 [1918]. After lunch I motored to Buckingham Palace - - I told the King that it was very desirable to tell the Army in a few unambiguous sentences , what we are fighting for. The Army is now composed of representatives of all classes in the Nation, and many are most intelligent and think things out. They don't care whether France has Alsace and Italy Trieste; they realise that Britain entered the war to free Belgium and save France. Germany is now ready, we have been told, to give all we want in these respects [1]. So it is essential that some statement should be made which the soldier can understand and approve of. Few of us feel that the "democratising of Germany" is worth the loss of a single Englishman. - - -".


"Saturday October 19. - - - I was asked what the attitude of the Army would be if we stuck out for stiff terms, which enemy then refuses, and war goes on. I reminded the P.M. of the situation a year ago when there were frequent demands for information as to what we were fighting for; he (the P.M.) then made a speech and stated our war aims. The British Army had done most of the fighting latterly, and everyone wants to have done with the war, provided we get what we want. I therefore advise that we only ask in the armistice for what we intend to hold, and that we set our faces against the French entering Germany to pay off old scores. In my opinion, under the supposed conditions, the British Army would not fight keenly for what is really not its own affair. - - -"

[1] In fact it turned out that the Germans were not yet ready to meet those conditions. But by November they were, and Haig's attitude had not changed. While the second entry doesn't use the M-word anywhere, I kind of wonder whether he wasn't beginning to fear it if his men were pushed too far.

It certainly sounds like you could read it that way. I mean its only a few steps from "Not fighting keenly" to "Not fighting at all" and a few more steps from that to "Stringing up your officers and declaring for the Revolution."
 
It certainly sounds like you could read it that way. I mean its only a few steps from "Not fighting keenly" to "Not fighting at all" and a few more steps from that to "Stringing up your officers and declaring for the Revolution."


That last is rather improbable. Even the May mutineers in France didn't go that far.

But I could imagine something like "Further than Liege we will not go", rather as the German sailors said "Further than Heligoland we won't - -"
 
That last is rather improbable. Even the May mutineers in France didn't go that far.

But I could imagine something like "Further than Liege we will not go", rather as the German sailors said "Further than Heligoland we won't - -"

True, but did the May mutineers hear that Germany offered to surrender, and their generals refused to accept it?

It'd certainly end up with one hell of an awkward peace conference.
 
Top