WHY DID THE FIRST WORLD WAR END SO ABRUPTLY?

 

By chance, I came across this lecture about the causes of the armistice from Gresham College. As you may have gathered, I'm fascinated by the history of the First World War. For many reasons.

But one of them is that it was one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, yet seemingly also the most incomprehensible. The Second World War, by contrast, seems to have clear narratives to follow. A war of ideologies, of decidedly modern strategy and means, a war against world tyranny (the allies) or for lebensraum and prestige (the axis), antisemitism and wartime atrocities, etc. 

While horrific, the First World War fails to present us such clear narrative explanations. Instead, we have to look to large, structural historical changes going on in the Western World at the time. Much of the focus has been on its causes and which nations were responsible AND the harsh demands of the Versailles Treaty and its future, historical consequences. And the cultural impacts it had on the Twentieth Century and beyond (see my previous blog post on the subject).

But I've not come across as much discussion or analysis of the end of the war and the lead-up to the armistice. The questions posed by this lecture:

1. Why did the Germans first reject Wilson's proposal for an armistice, then months later, propose and accept those same terms?
2. Why did the war end abruptly in November 1918, instead of continuing further into 1919?
3. In what sense were the allies the victors, when the Germans still occupied French territory even up to the end of the war?

These questions help to frame both the armistice and the eventual outcomes that led to the Versailles Treaty. I found this lecture to be both powerful and provocative in its explanations and approach. Highly recommend.