4 ms·

Although the issue is complex, a very dominant part of the "some reason" was that the German army never really experienced an unequivocal final military defeat

Although the issue is complex, a very dominant part of the "some reason" was that the German army never really experienced an unequivocal final military defeat (although it was clear to the high command that the war could no longer be won, this was far from obvious to the population) and remained in effective control of Germany, allowing them to consciously disseminate propaganda for their own ends as well as taking full advantage of the ensuing popular unrest after the end of the war.

vkou 6y ago
To be more specific - at the time the armistice was signed, no Entente soldier had yet a foot on German soil. The front-line was still running through Belgium. To the average German pundit, it was not at all clear that the war was lost.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Maybe. But at that time, the population of Germany was malnourished and short of food, fuel and other commodities. Civilian death rates began to increase. So like our plague deniers today, some people probably deluded themselves into believing victory was near. But I’m sure most knew it wasn’t going well.
  - vkou 6y ago
    Given that the press was only allowed to publish positive propaganda about the state of the war effort, all of that could have be explained away as some temporary supply disruption.
vondur 6y ago
Well Napoleon had pretty much stomped up and down on the Prussians and Austria during the Wars Of the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars. I think part of the harshness of the treaty that ended the Franco-Prussian wars was a bit of revenge for the Germans.
- jychang 6y ago
  That was 1812, though (plus the hundred days). There wasn’t any big German military defeat since the Congress of Vienna system until WWII, a period of over a century. Imagine the USA’s military ego, but instead of losing Vietnam in the 70s, you stomped France instead. The military arrogance was real.
  - peteretep 6y ago
    > There wasn’t any big German military defeat That’s because there wasn’t a Germany for at least half of that period. And while Germany may not have lost any nearby land wars, their colonial empire was a bit of a joke compared to the other European powers.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
hutzlibu 6y ago
Parts of the "complex" is that there was a revolution going on, too. The monarchy was overthrown and the military command happily let the representants of the new democracy take responsibility of the "peace treaty". In the meaning of: "see, this is what democracy gives you. While the army is unbeaten in the field, those traitors give up to the enemy."
billfruit 6y ago
And in the Eastern front Germany occupied much territories that while the treaties was being negotiated they were left in control for time being over a large swathe of Russian/Ukrainian/Belorusian territories even though in-effect Germany was the loser of the conflict, is what I remember vaguely from a history I had read.

vkou 6y ago

To be more specific - at the time the armistice was signed, no Entente soldier had yet a foot on German soil. The front-line was still running through Belgium. To the average German pundit, it was not at all clear that the war was lost.

Spooky23 6y ago
Maybe. But at that time, the population of Germany was malnourished and short of food, fuel and other commodities. Civilian death rates began to increase. So like our plague deniers today, some people probably deluded themselves into believing victory was near. But I’m sure most knew it wasn’t going well.
- vkou 6y ago
  Given that the press was only allowed to publish positive propaganda about the state of the war effort, all of that could have be explained away as some temporary supply disruption.

vondur 6y ago

Well Napoleon had pretty much stomped up and down on the Prussians and Austria during the Wars Of the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars. I think part of the harshness of the treaty that ended the Franco-Prussian wars was a bit of revenge for the Germans.

jychang 6y ago
That was 1812, though (plus the hundred days). There wasn’t any big German military defeat since the Congress of Vienna system until WWII, a period of over a century. Imagine the USA’s military ego, but instead of losing Vietnam in the 70s, you stomped France instead. The military arrogance was real.
- peteretep 6y ago
  > There wasn’t any big German military defeat That’s because there wasn’t a Germany for at least half of that period. And while Germany may not have lost any nearby land wars, their colonial empire was a bit of a joke compared to the other European powers.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

hutzlibu 6y ago

Parts of the "complex" is that there was a revolution going on, too. The monarchy was overthrown and the military command happily let the representants of the new democracy take responsibility of the "peace treaty". In the meaning of: "see, this is what democracy gives you. While the army is unbeaten in the field, those traitors give up to the enemy."

billfruit 6y ago

And in the Eastern front Germany occupied much territories that while the treaties was being negotiated they were left in control for time being over a large swathe of Russian/Ukrainian/Belorusian territories even though in-effect Germany was the loser of the conflict, is what I remember vaguely from a history I had read.