WI: The Entente crossed into Germany proper before the Armistice

What if the Entente managed to break through the Hindenburg Line early enough and rapidly sweep across German territory right before the Germans sue for armistice? How will this affect the peace negotiations?
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Not at all- the Germans were beaten by the time of the Armistice and they knew it. The Armistice terms themselves are as harsh a situation as you describe with the occupation of the Rhineland and bridgeheads across it

The terms were designed to make a resumption of hostilities impossible (which they do). Just what can be harsher than

Termination of military hostilities on land or in air within six hours of signature.

Immediate removal of all German troops from France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Alsace-Lorraine within 14 days

Subsequent removal of all German troops from territory on the west side of the Rhine plus 30 km (19 mi) radius bridgeheads of the right side of the Rhine at the cities of Mainz, Koblenz, and Cologne with ensuing occupation by Allied and US troops.

Removal of all German troops on the eastern front—Turkey, Austro-Hungaria and Romania—to German territory as it was on 1 August 1914. Troops on Russian territory to be removed once the Allies "deem the time right".

Renunciation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Russia and of the Treaty of Bucharest with Romania.

Internment of the German fleet (High Seas Fleet).

Surrender of all German submarines

Surrender of materiel: 5,000 cannons, 25,000 machine guns, 3,000 minenwerfers, 1,700 airplanes, 5,000 locomotive engines, and 150,000 railcars.

Immediate release of all French, British and Italian prisoners of war (the German POWs would be released only after a peace treaty)[4]:917

Germany went into Versailles with no negotiating position at all other than her enemies internal disagreements
 
These discussion about "we should have invaded" generally overlook that this invasion in fact happened.
By mid December 1918, the whole area west of the Rhine was militarily occupied, and three large bridgeheads east of the Rhine had been formed. In addition, the French undertook numerous military expeditions into the unoccupied territory (not only to the Ruhr in 1923).
 
How will this affect the peace negotiations?

Not at all. The only negotiations that took place were those between the victors, about who got what piece of the spoils. The beaten Central Powers could either accept the dictates - or refuse to sign.
 
What if the Entente managed to break through the Hindenburg Line early enough and rapidly sweep across German territory right before the Germans sue for armistice? How will this affect the peace negotiations?

Should make the French and British slightly less worried about the Americans, but it doesn't change the fact that the Allies had different views of Germany, or that the British didn't intend to support the French agenda in the postwar period, (under British balance of power doctrine, as incredible as it sounds, London started to treat France as the potential hegemonic threat in the post-war period).
 
The "stab in the back" trope after WWI was not dependent on the where the lines were when Germany threw in the sponge. The basic idea was that the "bad guys" (socialists, communists, Jews, etc) had obstructed the German war effort from the get-go which by 1918 had put the military in a no-win situation. So, the war ending up with Allied armies in Germany to some extent is not going to make much difference.

The zones of occupation OTL were about as large as the Allies wanted to make them - very temporary on the part of the US &UK and longer lasting on the part of the French. Since the sort of total redo of Germany that was planned in WWII was not on the table, there would be no reason to make bigger zones. The Americans certainly did not want to have to keep a lot of troops in Europe, the British did not have the manpower to do it without continuing conscription, and the French simply were bled white - where would they get enough warm bodies to occupy more territory than they did?
 
The "stab in the back" trope after WWI was not dependent on the where the lines were when Germany threw in the sponge. The basic idea was that the "bad guys" (socialists, communists, Jews, etc) had obstructed the German war effort from the get-go which by 1918 had put the military in a no-win situation. So, the war ending up with Allied armies in Germany to some extent is not going to make much difference.

The zones of occupation OTL were about as large as the Allies wanted to make them - very temporary on the part of the US &UK and longer lasting on the part of the French. Since the sort of total redo of Germany that was planned in WWII was not on the table, there would be no reason to make bigger zones. The Americans certainly did not want to have to keep a lot of troops in Europe, the British did not have the manpower to do it without continuing conscription, and the French simply were bled white - where would they get enough warm bodies to occupy more territory than they did?

It will make a difference, because IOTL, the trope wasn't just that Jews, liberals, and communists sabotaged the war effort, but that they did it when Germany was "winning".
 
Top