Offer of peace in 1916, true or false?

[KIRKY]

I remember seeing somewhere in a book the mention that Germany was keen to talk about peace before the Somme offensive but Allies would not consider as they wanted complete victory.

Anyone confirm and give more details? Or was I dreaming?

tony

[TD60]

And what about Verdun ?

Regards

[mcderms]

The Germans sounded out the European powers via the US with regard to peace in 1916. I believe that this was pre-Verdun and the idea was totally rejected by the French parliament prior to the battle. I am going on memeory here and think that Ian Ousby's book 'Road To Verdun' has something on it.

It's definitely mentioned in the Great War dvds - these show video footage of newspapers sellers with 'Peace?' type headlines.

[kerry]

It was also mentioned in Winter's book 'Haig - A Reappraisal' although he puts it at June1917 before the opening of 3rd Ypres. Winter's line is that the offer was allegedly so reasonable as to be difficult to turn down if reported back to Parliament and the people, who as we all know were being sorely tested by the mounting casualties, so allegedly it was rejected and all records of deliberations expunged from the officialrecords on the orders of Hankey. Allegedly.

Kerry

[Neil Burns]

During 1917 Kaiser Karl of Austria was attempting to broker a seperate peace with the Allies. Wilson delayed declaring war on Austria until Fall of 1917 in the hope that Austria could be won away from Germany. This is also why Wilson hesitated to openly support Czechoslovak and Polish indpendence at Austro-Hungarian expense. In the end Karl was unable to break with the pro-German elements in his court (how hard he really tried depends on how sympathetic you are towards him!)

If I recall correctly wasn't there a Papal call for peace in 1916 that the Allies ignored as they considered the Vatican too pro-Austrian?

Take care,

Neil

[jhill]

There have been one or two threads discussing similar issues, for example here .

The problem is that a modern war is such an overpowering expressing of national will that it is pretty much impossible to just call it off before either victory, defeat, or exhaustion occurs. At the beginning, the major powers had not even defined their war aims. By 1916 the Germans might have been expected to dangle peace feelers, seeing as they were standing on Belgium and part of France, but it is hard to stop in mid war when one seems to be winning.

As to peace movements, such as the Pope's 1916 effort, there was really no hope. Each nation needed the full effort and sacrifice of its population, and even considering peace would jepordize this.

Just an opinion.

[Guest]

At no time prior to the discussions which led to the artistice in November 1918 did the German idea of peace involve a return to 1914 frontiers. So, any peace treaty before then would have amounted to the Germans winning the war on very good terms for them.

The Central Powers were the aggressors in the war, a fact which should never be forgotten.

[Robert Dunlop]

Here is Ludendorff's description of the post-Somme peace initiative:

'The [German] Chancellor was, in September 1916, giving consideration to a possible negotiation for peace through President Wilson. Many circles in German were ill disposed to such a step, since the attitude of benevolence adopted by the United States toward the Entente had raised increasing bitterness among us... I was fully in agreement with the suggestion, and secretly very pleased that it was made, although I was skeptical of success... I waited with the greatest eagerness to learn whether or not he would make a proposal in October, but his re-election in November passed without his making up his mind to do so, and I gave up any hope of his intervention.

Count Burian then came forward with the proposal that the Quadruple Alliance should itself make a direct offer of peace to the enemy. I was equally sceptical as to the success of this scheme, but thought that it should be tried: the only thing to avoid at all costs was any display of weakness. This would have a very bad effect on the enemy and the public, and would have encouraged the Entente to redouble its efforts for our destruction. I asked that it should not be carried out until the campaign in Rumania had been brought to a successful conclusion. Bucharest fell on December 6, and with that I regarded the military situation as so secure that I had no objection to the publication of the peace note.

His Majesty took a most earnest interest in the peace offer, displaying clearly his high sense of his responsibility to bring peace to the world at the earliest possible moment ( ).

On December 12 the peace offer was made.

The reception of our offer by the Entente press was wholly unfavourable. It soon became clear that it would be impossible to come to an understanding.'

Robert

[salientguide]

Robert excellent post thank you. Therein lies the difficulty of the German(and others to this day) military mind. Absolutely no understanding that free nations are not likely to react to military aggression and the death of a million or so citizens ( all countries) by then , by calmly sitting down around a table and agreeing to reasonable terms on all sides. This is an eighteenth, nineteenth century mind set and to me reveals why the Emporers were doomed, the world had moved on by then they could not change and so were doomed. It still happens the lesson is adapt to changing circumstances or go under. Military action was rushed into in 1914 with no real thought as to the long term outcome. (Sound familiar??Iraq) so there are lessons still to be learnt from the history. SG

[Guest]

Absolutely no understanding that free nations are not likely to react to military aggression and the death of a million or so citizens ( all countries) by then , by calmly sitting down around a table and agreeing to reasonable terms on all sides.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The German idea of reasonable in 1916 was that they should keep all or much of their terrotorial gains. Even as late as the autumn of 1918 they were not prepared to give up their conquests.

[salientguide]

Angie, absolutely. And re reading the statement the absolute hypocrisy of the last lines become more breath taking by their sheer arrogance. The Kaiser having started an aggressive war (was he not the All Highest??), and so by modern definition a war criminal, is now to be congratulated on his desire to bring peace back to the world. A spin of massive proportions!! Hang the Kaiser I say!!

[Robert Dunlop]

I was fully in agreement with the suggestion, and secretly very pleased that it was made

This is an overlooked aspect of Ludendorff's 'military mind'. His comment about being pleased comes immediately after his description of the effects of the British offensive on the Somme and the previous experience of Verdun. Ludendorff could see that the Germans could not hold out. But he could not bring himself to admit this, with the result that he had to be replaced when it was too hopeless.

One should not underestimate the impact that the 'advance of only a few miles' on the Somme had at this level.

Robert

[paul guthrie]

It has been a while since I read the spurious peace offer but it was bombastic, pointed out that German arms had been successful everywhere, etc., it proposed little or no concessions be Germany unless guaranteeing the empires of its foes, which it could not obtain anyway was a conession.