why did foch impose waiting for the Armistice of 11 November 1918 to not take place until 11:00 the next day and how man

[RICHARD1959]

and how many lives did it cost the alies and the germans + civilians?

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

38 minutes ago, RICHARD1959 said:

and how many lives did it cost the alies and the germans + civilians?

It wasn't delayed until the next day.

It was signed at 5.00am when the Germans agreed to the terms, to come into effect at 11.00am the same morning.

Although it is said that 2,700 lives were lost on the last day, it was within the gift of the Central Powers to surrender at any point in the previous two months or more.

Edited 30 June , 2022 by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

[ilkley remembers]

Foch first spoke with the German peace delegation led by Matthias Erzberger on the morning of the 8th November 1918 when a list of demands was read out to the negotiating party. He then demanded acceptance within 72 hours. Erzberger aware of the further loss of life is reported to have pleaded “For God’s sake, Monsieur le Marechal, do not wait for those 72 hours. Stop the war this very day”. Foch refused and apparently told his staff that it was intention  “to pursue the Feldgrauen (field greys, or German soldiers) with a sword at their backs“.

 

The Armistice document was actually signed at 5.10am and news began to filter through to Allied and German units shortly afterwards so many soldiers were aware that the war would end that day.

 

Whilst war weary British, French and German units were less likely risk further casualties some units of the American army do not seem to have had similar reservations about launching attacks. Several American units made assaults upon German lines that morning which according to the historian Joseph Perspico cost over 300 lives.

 

A number of complaints about these unnecessary attacks were made by to US citizens and as a result a full Congressional Committee was convened to investigate the behavior of some American unit commanders. Pershing himself is supposed to have  justified the loss of life by refering to the instruction issued by Foch

Edited 1 July , 2022 by ilkley remembers

[sassenach]

I believe it is the case that both Foch and Pershing were against an Armistice. Foch is said to have commented that "this is not peace, it is an Armistice for twenty years." He was,  of course, just a few months out. 

[Ron Clifton]

I believe that Foch made that comment about the Treaty of Versailles, not about the Armistice of 11 November 1918.

Ron

[sassenach]

7 minutes ago, Ron Clifton said:

I believe that Foch made that comment about the Treaty of Versailles, not about the Armistice of 11 November 1918.

Ron

Yes of course, thanks for the correction. I think it was Pershing who made a similar comment at the time of the Armistice.