11/11/18

[Steve Grace]

I have just started a book called "11th Month, 11th Day, 11th Hour" and I am in shock in regards to the amount of soldiers who lost their lives leading up to the ceasefire, before reading this book I was under the impression that a few were unlucky but not as much as 11,000 casualties (more than the allied invasion on D-Day!).

The harshness (It that a word???!!!) of it all after 4 years of bloodshed just beggars belief!

(Sorry if this has been covered before!!)

[steve fuller]

Hi Steve

Not good is it, but I read that many of them just kept their heads down & 'did their jobs' until the last minute, bless them.

If you look at the threads around that date mate I believe youlll find some detail about specific cases (if you should need any more for your book).

Good luck with your book

Steve

[AndyHollinger]

The Americans alone gave up more than 3K casualties ... (none above Lt.Col, though) on the last MORNING! Talk about combative and competitive spirit! There was a congressional inquirey into the last morning's attacks and censure was going to be given but was hushed up by the Democrats during the fight over the treaty.

To me, these last hours attacks was a callous disregard for men's lives.

[Steve Grace]

Couldn't agree with you more, after all the sacifices already given and still they ask for more!

[Pte1643]

Hi Guys

I'm sure I remember watching a TV documentary a while ago, History Channel or Discovery perhaps, Can't recall.

Stating, that the Armistice was signed at 5 a.m. The men were kept "In the dark" over this fact, and that some of the most concetrated artillery barrages were indeed in the last few hours, up until 11 a.m. In order to inflict as much "last minute" damage as possible.

Can anyone confirm this?

Mark

[Tom Morgan]

Mark - this is just my view. Maybe others will have a different take. The fighting couldn't stop at the moment of the signing. The signing was an agreement to stop fighting for the time being, and one part of the agreement was the date and time at which the ceasefire would take effect, bearing in mind the time needed to issue orders to all units concerned. The delay between the signing and the ceasefire was a purely practical matter, I think, so that the ceasefire could be complete, at the chosen time, with no misunderstandings. I don't think there were any ulterior motives.

Tom

[AndyHollinger]

Yes, the History Channel ran the story ... the armistice was signed early ... I believe it was in the 3am range ... but the timing was set at 11 am for the eleventh hour effect ... and, yes, attacks went off as planned by men who knew the fighting was going to be over.

To me, more than anything I've ever read or heard about ... this is an apalling story about the mindset of some of the General Officers in this war (heck, of any war) ... in all the ranting strings we've gone through about mindless butcher generals - and with me usually defending the officers - this is a shining testimony of some who cared more about their own ego than the lives of men who will never live them ...

[AndyHollinger]

Mark - this is just my view. Maybe others will have a different take. The fighting couldn't stop at the moment of the signing. The signing was an agreement to stop fighting for the time being, and one part of the agreement was the date and time at which the ceasefire would take effect, bearing in mind the time needed to issue orders to all units concerned. The delay between the signing and the ceasefire was a purely practical matter, I think, so that the ceasefire could be complete, at the chosen time, with no misunderstandings. I don't think there were any ulterior motives.

Tom

Tom, your post slipped in while I was writing mine. I believe there is some truth to your assertion. The armistice was not considered by the General Staff as being the end that it became. It would take some time before the orders could be put through all the channels and the fighting stopped ... The allies were all worried this was a "German Trick" ... Capt Harry Truman was upset because he wanted to kill more Germans and this would stop it ...

All that is true, but ... It is not that hard to stop an attack of infantry and there was enough time to call off bombardments and the like. While I can not say anything about much other than what was presented on the History Channel's program ... it seemed at least on the American sector ... the attacks were done on purpose and to "finish off" divisional records about ground gained. Officers that knew the fighting would stop at 11 ordered attacks that were previously canceled and the like.

IF there were only piecemeal attacks I'd give the officers the benefit of the doubt (not that my opinion matters) but, from the History Channel presentation, the American Divisional commanders reinstituted attacks over cancelation orders sent down by Pershing.

I understand as well that the History Channel (or the producers of various "movie" companies) might distort things just to make a story ... and the fact that there was a Congressional investigation really shows little - heck we've always had witch hunts in Congress ... are there experts among us who can be more authoriitative about the mornings attacks to debunk the program?

[egbert]

I posted that earlier on this topic!!!!!!!!

[mcderms]

Don't forget that operational commanders had no idea that the Armistice would be coming into effect on 11/11/18 until the very last moment. Most senior officers in the BEF knew that something was up hence the lack of action on 11/11 itself but as posted above, actions that turned out to be days before the Armistice could have been weeks or months before if talks had broken down (again). It wasn't over until it was over. If you want to get mad, get mad with the German snipers who weren't recalled and carried on shooting all day or the machine gunner who refused to surrender and caused the last (unofficial) BEF action of the war when a platoon bombed him out... Some diehard Hun officers it seems did not know when to give in and call back all their men.

War is hell...

[Terry Denham]

And in East Africa the armistice did not come into effect officially until 13.11.18 due to the difficulties of communication.

There, men continued to die in the last days of their war whilst in Europe there was celebration.

[12cmgc]

If you are able to get the Winter 2005, MHQ, The Quarterly Journal of Military History, it has a whole article on this topic from the US perspective. Even how the Congressional hearings got derailed in the end.....

I think the Canadian action on Mons on 11/1/18 has been well documented in a similar vein....

[Guest Juice]

CEF General Sir Arthur Currie went to Court in the 20's against a newspaper who accused him of "useless slaughter of his men" on the morning of 11/11/18 at Mons (last Canadian KIA was at approx 10:45AM). He won his case. It never really cleaned his reputation however.

Even if I slightly question the operations of the CEF on that day, it must be said that throughout the war, Currie demonstrated a lot of respect for the individuals in his Corp, especially in comparaison to the standard attitude of high ranking officers of the time.

Will Bird in "Ghosts have warm hands" gives an excellent first-hand account of the fighting during that very last morning (he received the MM for his actions at Mons)

Juice

[RodB]

Haven't seen the documentary, but my impression is that by Nov/18 everybody was looking to the shape of the postwar world, and who would have the say at the peace conference and in framing the treaty. Certainly Britain wanted to be seen as a decisive player, and seemed to be willing to "use" her dominions to attain that goal - despite evidence that the Empire was dead. Likewise the US needed a "moral foundation" to base its power base at the conference on. Likewise Billy Hughes, who championed the Australian cause at the conference : "I speak for 60,000 dead".

If you're a cynic, you can see politicians uses corpses and territory captured as bargaining chips. If you're a realist, could it have been any other way ?

[KONDOA]

the Armistice was signed at 5 a.m. The men were kept "In the dark" over this fact, and that some of the most concetrated artillery barrages were indeed in the last few hours, up until 11 a.m

From the evidence contained in Artillery war Diaries (4th Army) I have this would appear incorrect. Many batteries were stood down up to 2 days before the armistice. Indeed some infantry battalions were marching back to billets before the armistice.

Roop

[12cmgc]

The Currie affair in the '20s was led in the background from accounts by Sam and Garnet Hughes for past grievances (Garnet not getting a command?) and otherwise.... and aided by an Ontario newspaper editor/owner who wanted to sell papers from all accounts.

As stated, the Mons findings were otherwise but Currie's health was unfortunatley affected and aided his early demise.

Share the same opinion of Currie's character as the previous reply on this topic..

[Dave_59]

From what i have read so far in this book (scan reading), it would seem that the men involved in these attacks were aware of the armistice at 11am. The attacks, according to the author Joseph E. Persico were cancelled in light of the amistice. However that morning the American troops were told to ready themselves for action, as the attack was 'back on'.

Dave

[marc leroux]

Taking a contrary position:

An Armistice is not the same as a surrender. Does anyone know if the terms of the Armistice were communicated to the front line commanders? Would they have known that there was just to be a cease-fire, or would they have been aware of the terms? Is it possible that they would have thought that the Germans would have kept the land they occupied? Or possibly that this was just a ploy to allow the Germans, beaten but not vanquished, to regroup. Andy McNaughton, on hearing of the Armistice is reputed to have said: “Bloody fools! We have them on the run. This means we shall have to do this all over again in twenty five years”. How prophetic.

We have the advantage of hindsight.

marc

[Guest]

Looking at the unit diary for the 9th Brigade, CFA.

The entry for 11-11-18 includes "At 09.00 Brigade moved forward ... and went into action in the vicinity of the village of CUESMES..." The next line is "Rumours of an armistice were heard in the early morning and at 09:00 orders were received that hostilities would cease at 11.00 hours to-day."

This would indicate that even though they knew when the fighting would stop, they continued to fight.

I recall reading many years ago that the 36th Battery, CFA (my grand father's unit) fired the last shot of the war and that one of the guns from the Battery was in the museum at Mons. Can anyone confirm that for me?

[CTID]

From a recent UK History Programme - The chap in charge of negotiations for the UK was Wheims (sp?). He had been ordered to arrange the cease-fire for 2.30pm (presumably UK time) so Lloyd George could take the credit as he addressed the House.

Wheims defied orders, 11.00 11/11/18 seemed 'neater' IIRC and he knew he'd save 000's of lives. By the time the news reached London it was too late for LG to do anything about it.

But LG had his revenge - Wheims was denied the pension / bounty he should have got (£100K?)

Anyone know if this reliable? If so Wheims perhaps deserves recognition for his actions.

Roger

[marc leroux]

This would indicate that even though they knew when the fighting would stop, they continued to fight.

No question about that. My point was the terms of the armistice. Is it possible that the commanders felt that the Germans might keep the ground that they had gained up to the time of the Armistice?

marc

[KONDOA]

Does anyone know if the terms of the Armistice were communicated to the front line commanders?

Haigs Despatches would infer that the British officers were aware of the terms and the meaning of the Armistice. Some war diaries also infer that the officers at Battery level (RGA) knew what was happening.

Roop

[Frank_East]

"Whiems" would be Admiral Sir Rosslyne Wemyss who was First Sea Lord from 1917 when Sir John Jellicoe was sacked. Later, in 1919 he was in the British delegation for the Paris Peace Conference.He resigned from the office of First Sea Lord in early 1919 when he thought he was under pressure to go.

According to John Tolands book "Noman's Land,The Story of 1918", the armistice negotiations began at 0900 on 8 November in the railway carriage in the clearing at Compiegne.

At 0215 hours on 11 November the final session began and by 0505 hours everything was settled. For over an hour previously there was the liveliest argument over the article that the Allies would continue to blockade Germany by sea.In the end the British delegation stated that they would inform their government that the Germans wished to have the blockade lifted.It was also agreed by all the Allies (only Great Britain and France had a formal presence) that they would supply Germany with food during the armistice.

Foch and Wemyss signed first and Winterfeldt and Vanselow, both tearful, signed by 0510 for the new Germany.It was agreed to set the time officially at 0500 so that the armistice would come into effect 6 hours later at 1100 hours.The session ended at 0530 without a single handshake.Foch sent a message immediately by radio and telephone to the C in Cs on all fronts,ordering a cessation of hostilities at 1100 hours (local time).Troops were not to go beyond the line reached at that time until further orders, and all communication with the enemy was forbidden until receipt of instruction.

Later that morning, Foch met Clemenceau who asked of Foch irritably,"What have you yielded to the Germans".Foch handed over a copy of the agreement and said "At eleven,guns should be fired in Paris to announce the end of hostilities.It is unthinkable that the Parisians remain in ignorance of it".Clemenceau agreed,"Let the guns be fired at eleven o'clock"

Foch added to Clemenceau, "My work is finished,Your work begins"

Apparently Clemenceau intended to keep the signing secret until the meeting with the R F Deputies planned for the afternoon.It was Foch's suggestion to announce the end of hostilities by the sounding of the Paris guns at 1100 hours that caused Clemenceau to abandon his plan. Perhaps Lloyd George had a simliar plan to declare the war over in Parliament that afternoon which was abandoned as a result of Foch's meeting with Clemenceau.

Regards

Frank East

[TD60]

I add photo of the grave of this soldier died in Compiegne 11 11 18.

few kilometers from Foch's wagon.

Did he hear the victory before he died ?

I have often this question in mind when I see soldiers died on nov the 11th.

Regards

Edited 13 May , 2005 by TD60

[Plan]

The 11 November armistice was an armistice, with ulterior negotiations to be carried out for a final agreement. So the powers that where wanted to use the last day as to better their negotiating position, from maximum strength. I'm not saying it was right, but that is the explanation I read... One can speculate that to those in charge, one more day's worth of casualties was a relatively low, marginal, price for any "edge" gained in diplomatic negotiations. Not so for those doing the "dying" of course... Question of perspective.

In the case of Mons, Canadian Gen. Currie, was under British command... In some Canadian history, it is written that Mons was the first town the British lost, and so they wanted it retaken, as a symbol. I put that in the realm of possibilities, but I have never seen original document to prove it (but I never looked for any either).

In a TV (Canadian) documentary, the story of one soldier who's brother died in the taking of Mons is recounted. The man, revolted by his brother's death, claimed wanting to shoot Gen. Currie, or failing an opportunity, the highest "brass" that came along. His officer would have ordered one of his pal to get him so drunk that by the time he'd recover, he would not remember... One has to respect that officer's ingenuity in finding solutions to problems: a lesser leader would have had the man arrested and court martialed!

I also recall reading that an order was issued in the french army that casualties on Nov. 11th where to be recorded as having happened on the 10th... I would strongly doubt it was entirely followed... The info is from a French author of a book/article.

If I'd known I'd be posting about this stuff one day, I would have kept note of sources...

Pascal