The day the German navy surrendered in the Forth

[easty]

I just read this on the BBC, I'd never heard this before, I'm amazed I wasn't taught about it at school.

It's kind of amazing. Imagine seeing that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46273928

[Lendo]

The pictures are pretty spectacular. Hard to believe I hadn't of this before.

[Fife-Hibee]

You never heard about it at school, because you weren't allowed to. England won the war by themselves, while Scotland took a back seat.

[Antifa Hibs]

Fife-Hibee wrote...
You never heard about it at school, because you weren't allowed to. England won the war by themselves, while Scotland took a back seat.

That's nonsense. Hertz won the war by themselves...

In all seriousness also never knew this happened. Interesting read - thanks to the OP for posting.

[Hibee87]

You never heard about it at school, because you weren't allowed to. England won the war by themselves, while Scotland took a back seat.

:confused: I am assuming thats meant as a tongue in cheek post?

Im 31, a couple of years younger than the OP and in my 4 years at high school we done an extensive bit in history on both WW1 and WW2. I remember vaguely going over this bit and other bits of the war to do with Forth. Inchcolm island and crammond island I think was the last line of defence with big guns to down planes (the rail bridge was looked at as a major target for the Luftwaffe).

Im not sure if I made this up, it was same war or what but I seem to recall a bit about a plane coming down along the coast of Fife somewhere that turned into a bit of a mystery as the locals who saved the pilot (may have been a female pilot iirc) were not allowed to speak of it.

[Fife-Hibee]

:confused: I am assuming thats meant as a tongue in cheek post?

Im 31, a couple of years younger than the OP and in my 4 years at high school we done an extensive bit in history on both WW1 and WW2. I remember vaguely going over this bit and other bits of the war to do with Forth. Inchcolm island and crammond island I think was the last line of defence with big guns to down planes (the rail bridge was looked at as a major target for the Luftwaffe).

Im not sure if I made this up, it was same war or what but I seem to recall a bit about a plane coming down along the coast of Fife somewhere that turned into a bit of a mystery as the locals who saved the pilot (may have been a female pilot iirc) were not allowed to speak of it.

No way would it have been a female pilot in WW1. Perhaps you're thinking of the Luftwaffe attack on the Firth of Forth at the start of WW2?

[Hibee87]

No way would it have been a female pilot in WW1. Perhaps you're thinking of the Luftwaffe attack on the Firth of Forth at the start of WW2?

Sorry My post does seem a bit confusing, I was just raking my brain form both the wars and typing away.

To answer the op properly though I do remember going over the end of the war in great deatil, including the navy surrender which ended in a trip I sadly didnt go on to the battle fields of belgium and France. I opted to go on the water sports trip in the south of France as most of my mates were going, I look back now and wish I had done the battlefields one as I had a vetted interest in History (one of the only subjects at school I actually did enjoy)

[CropleyWasGod]

You never heard about it at school, because you weren't allowed to. England won the war by themselves, while Scotland took a back seat.

That's nonsense.

Off the top of my head, I learnt about Scapa Flow, the Thin Red Line and the 51st Division, at school. Each of them from a different war, each of them Scots fighting in a UK war.

And then there was Mad Mitch in Aden....

[Pretty Boy]

You never heard about it at school, because you weren't allowed to. England won the war by themselves, while Scotland took a back seat.

:faf:

[Fife-Hibee]

That's nonsense.

Off the top of my head, I learnt about Scapa Flow, the Thin Red Line and the 51st Division, at school. Each of them from a different war, each of them Scots fighting in a UK war.

And then there was Mad Mitch in Aden....


:faf:

Not sure how things were back in the good old days, but I certaintly wasn't taught about it at school, despite taking up history.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not sure how things were back in the good old days, but I certaintly wasn't taught about it at school, despite taking up history.

That is the way they were "in the good old days" (whatever they are), which invalidates your previous assertion.

I didn't need to "take up history". I was taught about those things in primary school.

[Pretty Boy]

Not sure how things were back in the good old days, but I certaintly wasn't taught about it at school, despite taking up history.

The 'good old days' are 1998-2004? I really am getting old.

I can't speak for every school but our history curriculum was weighted towards Scottish history or history from a Scottish perspective. Off the top of my head I remember covering both World Wars with emphasis placed on Scottish inbolvement, the wars of independence, Mary Queen of Scots, the Stuarts and the road to union, Darien, the industrialisation of Scotland and Scotlands history of immigration and emigration. I also went on a battelfield trip to France and Belgium that placed huge emphasis on places with a particular relevance to Scotland.

In fact I enjoyed it all so much I went on to study history and Scottish ethnology at uni.

[Hibrandenburg]

Some historians believe the ending of WW1 was coordinated secretly between the governments on both sides because there was rebellion in the air and not entirely because Germany acknowledged it was likely to lose.

Russia had seen revolution the previous year as their soldiers were rebelling against the senseless massacre taking place and the threat of starvation at home. Around half the French military were no longer taking orders from their commanders, the German Imperial Fleet had stopped fighting after a mass mutiny took place at several German naval bases and many German army units were threatening to revolt. Even some British army regiments had started a mutiny that was threatening to spread across the whole front.

Worried that the same could happen in Western Europe what happened the previous year in Russia, the German, French and British commander decided to try and take the wind out of the sails of those voices that were growing louder and calling for a people's revolution to end the war by ending it themselves.

At the point of armistice there were no foreign troops within Germany's borders and German troops were still holding ground outside it's own territory.

Put simply, there's an argument to be made that the 1st World War was brought to an end not because one side was close to defeat but simply because the establishment in all countries involved were more worried about being overthrown by popular revolution. Which actually took place in Germany shortly after the guns fell silent.

[lord bunberry]

Some historians believe the ending of WW1 was coordinated secretly between the governments on both sides because there was rebellion in the air and not entirely because Germany acknowledged it was likely to lose.

Russia had seen revolution the previous year as their soldiers were rebelling against the senseless massacre taking place and the threat of starvation at home. Around half the French military were no longer taking orders from their commanders, the German Imperial Fleet had stopped fighting after a mass mutiny took place at several German naval bases and many German army units were threatening to revolt. Even some British army regiments had started a mutiny that was threatening to spread across the whole front.

Worried that the same could happen in Western Europe what happened the previous year in Russia, the German, French and British commander decided to try and take the wind out of the sails of those voices that were growing louder and calling for a people's revolution to end the war by ending it themselves.

At the point of armistice there were no foreign troops within Germany's borders and German troops were still holding ground outside it's own territory.

Put simply, there's an argument to be made that the 1st World War was brought to an end not because one side was close to defeat but simply because the establishment in all countries involved were more worried about being overthrown by popular revolution. Which actually took place in Germany shortly after the guns fell silent.
The Germans were in full retreat across the whole front. There’s no way they’d have accepted the terms of the treaty of Versailles if they weren’t on their knees. They wanted an armistice to stop the allies invading Germany. The German army was in complete disarray by the time the armistice was signed.

[Hibrandenburg]

The Germans were in full retreat across the whole front. There’s no way they’d have accepted the terms of the treaty of Versailles if they weren’t on their knees. They wanted an armistice to stop the allies invading Germany. The German army was in complete disarray by the time the armistice was signed.

Then we need to ask ourselves why the powers at be decided not to press ahead and ensure that the defeat of Germany was complete? Why were the Entete who would have loved nothing more than to destroy Germany and remove any further threat from their deadliest foe unwilling to press ahead and vanquish their bitter enemy if the door to Berlin was open? Why was a deal made that both sides could live with? Why did the allied supreme commander Foch describe the peace treaty that was agreed by the allies as "a 20 year cease-fire"? Why after 4 years of reckless carnage were the powers that be ready to compromise with an enemy that were on their knees?


The only answer that makes sense to me is not that the powers that be suddenly had a change of heart, rather that they were seeing evidence that their 'pawns of war" were at breaking point and ready to turn on them.

[RyeSloan]

Then we need to ask ourselves why the powers at be decided not to press ahead and ensure that the defeat of Germany was complete? Why were the Entete who would have loved nothing more than to destroy Germany and remove any further threat from their deadliest foe unwilling to press ahead and vanquish their bitter enemy if the door to Berlin was open? Why was a deal made that both sides could live with? Why did the allied supreme commander Foch describe the peace treaty that was agreed by the allies as "a 20 year cease-fire"? Why after 4 years of reckless carnage were the powers that be ready to compromise with an enemy that were on their knees?


The only answer that makes sense to me is not that the powers that be suddenly had a change of heart, rather that they were seeing evidence that their 'pawns of war" were at breaking point and ready to turn on them.

Is it not possible that the answer is somewhere in the middle?

That all sides were exhausted both literally and morally so seeking a negotiated peace was the easiest and smartest way out of the god awful mess that they had found themselves in?

The origins of the First World War are the subject of many a tome but I’ve not seen the complete and utter destruction of Germany by the allies as a stated aim at the start so why would it be any surprise that it wasn’t at the end either?

[lord bunberry]

Then we need to ask ourselves why the powers at be decided not to press ahead and ensure that the defeat of Germany was complete? Why were the Entete who would have loved nothing more than to destroy Germany and remove any further threat from their deadliest foe unwilling to press ahead and vanquish their bitter enemy if the door to Berlin was open? Why was a deal made that both sides could live with? Why did the allied supreme commander Foch describe the peace treaty that was agreed by the allies as "a 20 year cease-fire"? Why after 4 years of reckless carnage were the powers that be ready to compromise with an enemy that were on their knees?


The only answer that makes sense to me is not that the powers that be suddenly had a change of heart, rather that they were seeing evidence that their 'pawns of war" were at breaking point and ready to turn on them.
At the time there was a lot of disagreement about finishing Germany off rather than allowing them an armistice. Foch in particular wanted a total victory and that’s why he said what he said after the treaty was signed. The American commander (Pershing I think) also shared that view, but it was the politicians who made the call.
Ive no doubt the points you raised were of serious concern at the time, but I don’t think they had anything to do with the way the war ended.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

At the time there was a lot of disagreement about finishing Germany off rather than allowing them an armistice. Foch in particular wanted a total victory and that’s why he said what he said after the treaty was signed. The American commander (Pershing I think) also shared that view, but it was the politicians who made the call.
Ive no doubt the points you raised were of serious concern at the time, but I don’t think they had anything to do with the way the war ended.

The very punative and one sided terms suggests to me that germany were very much the ones suing for peace. Had there not already been revolution in Germany, with the kaiser being toppled, or did that come later?

I just cant imagine any circumstances where the royal navy would have surrendered its fleet in similar fashion, other than the country being utterly defeated.

[Hibrandenburg]

Is it not possible that the answer is somewhere in the middle?

That all sides were exhausted both literally and morally so seeking a negotiated peace was the easiest and smartest way out of the god awful mess that they had found themselves in?

The origins of the First World War are the subject of many a tome but I’ve not seen the complete and utter destruction of Germany by the allies as a stated aim at the start so why would it be any surprise that it wasn’t at the end either?

:agree: Pretty much what I was really trying to say. I think it would be fair to say that the authorities were more scared of revolution at home than the Germans at the end of the war. When the armies came home there were several mutinies involving workers, soldiers and even the police. In Germany it led to revolution and the Weimar Republic but in the UK they were brutally put down and we even had tanks on the streets. There's more to how the Great War ended than the official version that gets taught in schools.

[Hibrandenburg]

At the time there was a lot of disagreement about finishing Germany off rather than allowing them an armistice. Foch in particular wanted a total victory and that’s why he said what he said after the treaty was signed. The American commander (Pershing I think) also shared that view, but it was the politicians who made the call.
Ive no doubt the points you raised were of serious concern at the time, but I don’t think they had anything to do with the way the war ended.

We'll have agree to disagree. I think the rise of resentment within the UK and France and disillusionment with the war were a major factor in the peace treaty being agreed. Same in Germany but it was too late for them as revolution had already begun. Germany was in effect a military state at the time but the military leadership managed to save their reputation by sending civilians to sign the treaty. There were many in the German military who believed the war was still winnable including an insignificant little corporeal named Hitler, who later got the military behind him because many of the high ranking officers felt they were betrayed.

[Hibrandenburg]

The very punative and one sided terms suggests to me that germany were very much the ones suing for peace. Had there not already been revolution in Germany, with the kaiser being toppled, or did that come later?

I just cant imagine any circumstances where the royal navy would have surrendered its fleet in similar fashion, other than the country being utterly defeated.

The German Navy played a major part in the revolution that followed the war. Many sailors leaving their ships to take up arms against the German military leadership. The sparks that set off the revolution started in Wilhelmshaven and Kiel, both huge naval bases.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The German Navy played a major part in the revolution that followed the war. Many sailors leaving their ships to take up arms against the German military leadership. The sparks that set off the revolution started in Wilhelmshaven and Kiel, both huge naval bases.

Thats as maybe, but im still not sure how handing over your entire naval fleet to your enemies would help that. Presumably the crews were not handed over with them, and so were still free to forment revolution in Germany.

Im not saying it wouldnt habe played a part, it just sounds a bit like revisionism to claim the war was ended by mutual consent, rather than by defeat.

Anyway, im no expert, and you know more about military and Germany than i do!

[Just Jimmy]

Not sure how things were back in the good old days, but I certaintly wasn't taught about it at school, despite taking up history.I did standard grade, higher and advanced higher 1997-2003 I've also got a degree and a masters in the subject.

I did it at school and I went to a fife school.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

I studied WW1 at school, in great detail I thought, yet I didn't hear about any of this.

[PeeJay]

We'll have agree to disagree. I think the rise of resentment within the UK and France and disillusionment with the war were a major factor in the peace treaty being agreed. Same in Germany but it was too late for them as revolution had already begun. Germany was in effect a military state at the time but the military leadership managed to save their reputation by sending civilians to sign the treaty. There were many in the German military who believed the war was still winnable including an insignificant little corporeal named Hitler, who later got the military behind him because many of the high ranking officers felt they were betrayed.


Think you may be wrong here P. - seems to me that the German High Command knew the game was up militarily in August 1918 after their offensive in July had failed and the US was fully deployed in the arena - the strikes, mutinies and widespread hunger in war-weary Germany coupled with the ever increasing political resistance in Germany leading up to November then played their part in forcing the hands of the generals - they tried to save face by asking the politicians to sue for peace - they in turn gave the Kaiser the choice of a "Heldentod" or exile ... the German Empire surrendered "unconditionally" - Germany had no say in anything - the Weimar Republic was only called so because there was so much street fighting going on in Berlin that the assembly had to take place in Weimar instead ... the navy mutineers were part of a general "mutiny" underway in the country at large - (Must admit I only recently discovered the mutineering sailors in Kiel thanks to ARD :greengrin!!)

There may well have been people who thought the war could still have been won, but - like AH - they were severely deluded - the simple truth is the war stopped being winnable for Germany back in 1917 when the Americans entered it - no-one thought to tell the people back home until September 1918 - and as you know - they were completely unprepared for the news that the war was lost. Might miffed they were about it too ...

[Hibrandenburg]

Think you may be wrong here P. - seems to me that the German High Command knew the game was up militarily in August 1918 after their offensive in July had failed and the US was fully deployed in the arena - the strikes, mutinies and widespread hunger in war-weary Germany coupled with the ever increasing political resistance in Germany leading up to November then played their part in forcing the hands of the generals - they tried to save face by asking the politicians to sue for peace - they in turn gave the Kaiser the choice of a "Heldentod" or exile ... the German Empire surrendered "unconditionally" - Germany had no say in anything - the Weimar Republic was only called so because there was so much street fighting going on in Berlin that the assembly had to take place in Weimar instead ... the navy mutineers were part of a general "mutiny" underway in the country at large - (Must admit I only recently discovered the mutineering sailors in Kiel thanks to ARD :greengrin!!)

There may well have been people who thought the war could still have been won, but - like AH - they were severely deluded - the simple truth is the war stopped being winnable for Germany back in 1917 when the Americans entered it - no-one thought to tell the people back home until September 1918 - and as you know - they were completely unprepared for the news that the war was lost. Might miffed they were about it too ...

Yes your right P. There's no denying that the game was up for Kaiser Bill as soon as their last offensive failed. But what I'm rather clumsily trying to say is that there were other factors that also played a role in how the war ended the way it did. Bill might have had the option to withdraw back behind the Rhine and continue a defensive war if it wasn't for mutiny, revolt and political unrest within their own borders. Same could be said for the allies who were willing to accept a truce rather than a surrender. Also interesting is that amongst the allied demands was the requirement for the Germans to withdraw from all positions west of the Rhine and everywhere else to positions within Germany, with the exception of the pro German West Russian Volunteer Army, this together with the demand that Germany annulled the treaties made the previous year with Bolshevik Russia is a good indicator that the allies were concerned socialist unrest within the ranks and at home could snowball if hostilities continued.

[Saturday Boy]

I did standard grade, higher and advanced higher 1997-2003 I've also got a degree and a masters in the subject.

I did it at school and I went to a fife school.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Just reading this thread to keep away from the main board.

I know it’s probably not how you meant it, but replying to a post about “back in the good old days” with your education between 1997-2003, made me laugh.

Skool was fun in the 60s, much less history to learn about 😄

[barcahibs]

The war ended because the Entente had won it - though that wasn't perhaps as obvious to the people at the time as it is in hindsight hence the willingness to sign an armistice rather than push for final victory.

Surprisingly this is one of the few things that the British don't seem to crow about much - the British Imperial army of late 1918 was probably (certainly arguably) the finest military fighting force ever. Even if you don't buy into it that far, it was certainly far and away the best in the World at the time. The British had embraced technology and worked out combined arms warfare in a way that no one else had (they then immediately forgot about it and allowed the Germans to 'discover' it again and rename it Blitzkrieg in time for the next war).
There was absolutely no way that what was left of the German army in 1918 - particularly in light of the crippling supply situation caused by the Royal Navy's blockade - could stand against what was coming, they would simply have been steamrollered.

The British were the only nation to leave the war with a better army than at the beginning (and the original army, though tiny, had been pretty good to start with). But it was a citizen army, it couldn't be kept in the field once the war was over. Allied power melted away shockingly fast in 1919 with the rush to demob - I think there is a decent argument that a lot of the bloodshed over the following decades could have been avoided if the Entente had held on to some of its troops just a little longer - but there was no way you could have done so politically, the army wanted to go home.

A German surrender might have been only days/weeks away when the cease fire was announced, they were finished, but the war had cost so much already that you can maybe forgive the Entente political leadership for grabbing the chance of an early peace.

Speaking as someone who finished his schooling in 1996 we certainly covered plenty of Scottish history and Scotland's role in world events. I do think this must be patchy across the country though, I've got a colleague at work who's just a few years older than me and she blames all the ills of the world today on the 'English' Empire - I love to wind her up by bringing up Scotland's major role in the Empire, which she totally refuses to accept.

[Onceinawhile]

You never heard about it at school, because you weren't allowed to. England won the war by themselves, while Scotland took a back seat.

Indeed and those yoons on the BBC will never mention it either.

[Just Jimmy]

Just reading this thread to keep away from the main board.

I know it’s probably not how you meant it, but replying to a post about “back in the good old days” with your education between 1997-2003, made me laugh.

Skool was fun in the 60s, much less history to learn about [emoji1]

Because someone refered to the poster quoted as the good old days being 1998-2004.

regardless, the point was it was taught at various times between 1997-2003.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[PeeJay]

Yes your right P. There's no denying that the game was up for Kaiser Bill as soon as their last offensive failed. But what I'm rather clumsily trying to say is that there were other factors that also played a role in how the war ended the way it did. Bill might have had the option to withdraw back behind the Rhine and continue a defensive war if it wasn't for mutiny, revolt and political unrest within their own borders. Same could be said for the allies who were willing to accept a truce rather than a surrender. Also interesting is that amongst the allied demands was the requirement for the Germans to withdraw from all positions west of the Rhine and everywhere else to positions within Germany, with the exception of the pro German West Russian Volunteer Army, this together with the demand that Germany annulled the treaties made the previous year with Bolshevik Russia is a good indicator that the allies were concerned socialist unrest within the ranks and at home could snowball if hostilities continued.

It's an interesting topic no doubt, but I still think you may be interpreting some things wrongly here - I think there is evidence as you suggest that "the" Germans (from their perspective) hoped that the threat of Bolshevism on the domestic front would suffice to have the terms of surrender lessened somewhat - and that seems to have been the case to a minor extent, but ultimately the Allies called all the shots, I can't see any serious attempt to arrive at a mutual cessation of hostilities. Seems to me the Allies didn't make it into German territory primarily because of logistics, as the Germans had destroyed all roads/bridges into the Fatherland, slowing the Allied advance down - Once the population realised the war was not about to be won as the propoganda machine had told them, but rather lost the shock was too great and resentment was tremendous. I think France, in particular, demanded that Germany be "crippled" to such an extent in military terms that it would be unable to rearm in the long-term ... Germany was in no position to shape negotiations to any major extent - the myth making started the day after the armistice was signed of course - fake news is nothing new, unfortunately!

[Hibrandenburg]

It's an interesting topic no doubt, but I still think you may be interpreting some things wrongly here - I think there is evidence as you suggest that "the" Germans (from their perspective) hoped that the threat of Bolshevism on the domestic front would suffice to have the terms of surrender lessened somewhat - and that seems to have been the case to a minor extent, but ultimately the Allies called all the shots, I can't see any serious attempt to arrive at a mutual cessation of hostilities. Seems to me the Allies didn't make it into German territory primarily because of logistics, as the Germans had destroyed all roads/bridges into the Fatherland, slowing the Allied advance down - Once the population realised the war was not about to be won as the propoganda machine had told them, but rather lost the shock was too great and resentment was tremendous. I think France, in particular, demanded that Germany be "crippled" to such an extent in military terms that it would be unable to rearm in the long-term ... Germany was in no position to shape negotiations to any major extent - the myth making started the day after the armistice was signed of course - fake news is nothing new, unfortunately!

Funnily enough this popped up on my social media today. I'll have to check some off the claims but most I know to be true. I think the myth making and fake news was started well before the end and all sides were at it. Sometimes it's easier to see what really went down long after the events and the mists of political spin have somewhat dispersed.

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/13535/analysis-glasgow-berlin-how-strikes-mutinies-and-revolutions-ended-ww1

[Hibrandenburg]

Sorry, the link doesn't work from my phone.

[PeeJay]

Sorry, the link doesn't work from my phone.

Your link works fine on my PC P. - seems to me that your referenced article is shaping facts to suit its agenda - the mutiny in Germany at the marine bases was NOT primarily because the "working class" wanted to end the war - the simple truth is: the sailors/soldiers did not want to be sent to their deaths in a final, pointless battle, particularly as the war was now one that could never be won - the German propaganda machine's volte-face in the final days of the war fueled the prevailing unrest back home, but again I don't think the "threat of revolution" was the deciding or contributory factor in any armistice agreement - sure, it was somewhere - far down - in the mix, but the "ordinary people" had as little influence on stopping the war as it had had on starting the war - the decisions were always made elsewhere ... seems to me the low morale in the trenches was mainly down to the death and destruction all around them, not the promise of a worker's revolution back home. That's my feeling on the issue, but must look into this more ...