This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
There needs to be more information on the impact of the armistice on germany, or at least a page with information on the impact of the Armistice. --202.164.193.221 05:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This site[1] states that due to an error by a clerk, the carbon paper in was put in backwards and the copies signed were illegible or blank. I'd heard this before, but this isn't a great source, could be an urban legend. Is there a better source for this? Zeimusu | Talk page 13:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't the same thing (or were they at the time?) The Stumo (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time they were the same thing. It wasn't until WW II that France moved to UTC + 1. Jon (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11 AM Paris time (that is 12 AM GMT)
The article now has Paris 1 hour behind GMT. Pretty sure it should be 1100 Paris time (1000 GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.57.130 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jon: Paris time in November 1918 was equivalent to GMT. Time in France#History
I changed the article to indicate that Erzberger was instructed by Hindenburg to sign and included the reference. If there is documentation that Ebert also communicatd with Erzberger and urged him to sign that would be important to know but require a reference. Ekem (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was this armistice the origin of the use of the term "eleventh-hour" to mean something done at the last moment?
Was the timing of the armistice a pure coincidence or did the diplomats sit around waiting for the right instant?
Was there any intentional reference to Revelation 9 "And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.". I mean, given that the armistice left exactly an hour, and a day, and a month in that year... Wnt (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well your third point makes no sense at all. The Armistice left 13 hours, 19 days, and 1 month remaining in that year.Eregli bob (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing is: in german culture the 11th hour of the 11th day of november marks the beginning of carneval...--92.226.16.130 (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The title should be "Allied-Entente Armistice" or something similar. "Armistice with Germany" has perspective issues. -- Love, Smurfy 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the 1940 armistice at the same site is called Second Armistice at Compiègne, this one may as well be called First Armistice at Compiègne. Funnyhat (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Allies and the Entente were one and the same and this armistice was only concluded with Germany on the other side. The title is correct. Why assume that the article is using "Germany" as shorthand for "Central Powers" and accuse others of "perspective issues" when you are yourself unaware of the armistices with the other powers, wrongly assuming that the German armistice was the only one? Srnec (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that peace was finally declared in 1920. My family WW1 medals are clearly inscribed "The Great War 1914-1919".
Can anybody clear up this apparent discrepancy?AT Kunene (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no international authority defining "peace" different dates were used. Hostilities effectively ended in 1918, but a state of war between the powers remained in effect through the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. This document did not satisfy the United States, in particular, and there were further treaties signed after that. --Dhartung | Talk 13:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A claimed "last German casualty" after the armistice, one Lieutenant "Tomas", seems to have no reliable sources backing it up. The results I find in searches are all paraphrases of the material in the article, suggesting a cut-and-paste at best, or Wikipedia as the original source of the claim. There is nothing about final casualties in the German article, and a search using the German terms e.g. Waffenstillstand, turns up nothing corroborating. Obviously sourced information on final casualties from the German perspective is welcome, but I have to consider this one dubious. --Dhartung | Talk 12:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... there were 10,944 casualties of which 2,738 men died on the last day of the war." Allied or total ? NPOV dictates that both sides should get equal coverage if possible, and if data is only available for one side only it should be made clear. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: rename to First Armistice at Compiègne. There was a rough consensus (tho far from unanimity) that the current title is ambiguous. Of the various alternatives proposed, the most-strongly supported was First Armistice at Compiègne. Several editors had reservations about that title, so this may not be end of the matter, but that is as far as this discussion has proceeded. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This article is only about the German armistice, distinct from the Austro-Hungarian armistices signed at Villa Giusti and Belgrade, the Ottoman armistice signed at Mudros, or the Bulgarian armistice signed at Thessalonica. We have articles on all of them. I would support a move to First Armistice at Compiègne if there is opposition to the current title, but the proposed title absolutely not. Srnec (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Srnec titles with "WWI" in them. Neutral on『Armistice at Compiègne』variants. This article is specifically on the Armistice between the Allies and Germany; "World War I Armistice" would be a misleading title. Additionally, I don't really see a "fairness" issue here - the Allies negotiated largely as a block (with the exception of Greece) while the Central Powers peaced out individually, so using the relevant Central Power in the title gets straight to the relevant point. 『First Armistice at Compiègne』would work, I suppose, except it's weird since no contemporary documents would have any idea about a 2nd Armistice there, and even modern historians wouldn't normally see the need to disambiguate - if you're writing about WWI it's blatantly obvious which Armistice you mean. So maybe『1918 Armistice at Compiègne』if anything, although I really have no problems with the current title "Armistice with Germany" too. SnowFire (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To be more explicit re Andrewa's note, if the closer decides to move, my suggestion would probably be 1918 Armistice at Compiègne since "First" wasn't used at the time nor is used much now. That said First Armistice at Compiègne is still much, much better than the "WWI" variants which are actively misleading. SnowFire (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As has been pointed out, there were separate armistices with most of the Central Powers at the end of WW1, so the proposed move would be misleading. I am open to persuasion that there may be a better title, but as this is the only armistice with German with an article I don't think this is a pressing issue. PatGallacher (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: There seems to me to be a consensus that the current title is unsatisfactory, and I am also of this view. The question is, what is the best new title? Andrewa (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What is the problem? It was an armistice and it was with Germany. I don't even understand the "Title isn't global"/WP:WORLDVIEW/&c. arguments in the nomination. It was an armistice with Germany, not the world. On the other side, there were several Allies represented by Britain and France. Should they be listed in the title? (The title of the armistice, Convention d’armistice du 11 novembre 1918, doesn't refer to any countries). Since there is no other Wikipedia article on another armistice titled "with Germany", the current title is perfectly adequate. — AjaxSmack 03:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are only two other armistices to which Germany was a party: that with Russia in December 1917, which was signed by all the Central Powers, and that with France in June 1940. Since the one under consideration is almost the primary meaning of "Armistice" itself, I agree with Ajax that there is no compelling reason to move the article. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm in agreement with those who've opposed above; there really isn't a compelling reason to move this page. Hot Stop 16:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few observations. One is that in terms of WP:AT we're not just interested in what scholars regard as an armistice but also with what is recognizable to readers. This is perhaps not as clear in policy now as it once was, but I think it's still there. It's part of the reason we consult reliable sources not just scholarly sources.
This cuts both ways. As pointed out above, the Armistice popularly means this one, the one commemorated on Armistice Day at 11am on 11/11. And we have currently have no articles on the other two technical armistices to which Germany was a party. On the other hand, armistice popularly means any ratified ceasefire at all. Many would be surprised to find that there was no official armistice with Germany associated with VE Day.
I'm inclined to think that the current title is misleading in both ways. Andrewa (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They were hardly "technical" armistices! Indeed, Germany was less compelled to sign either of them than it was the one on 11 November. We have articles on both now: Second Armistice at Compiègne has been up for a while, but Armistice between Russia and the Central Powers I just started. There is more work to be done in the article to explain why the Bolsheviks wanted it, why it failed, what its terms meant for the war and how it relates to the armistice of Erzincan (which I'm still trying to sort out). Srnec (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem terribly relevant. You were the one who claimed There are only two other armistices to which Germany was a party... above, and I'm taking your word for that. But, as a general encyclopedia, we can expect people to come here looking for information on VE Day and possibly the ends to other hostilities as well. The fact that they may not know the learned (ortechnical) definition of armistice is completely irrelevant, we want to help them all to get to the information they want, and we choose our article titles with this as the main goal. Educating them that technically there was no armistice associated with VE Day (something I have only just learned myself, from you) is good too, but that comes later, when they (we) read the article.
The point I am making (as have others) is that by these criteria the current title is not good at all. Andrewa (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I admit it never occurred to me that people might end up here looking for information on the end of World War II in Europe. (I had to read your last message several times to figure out you weren't confusing Armistice Day with VE Day.) Any solution to that problem, however, must not leave casual readers with the impression that there was an armistice with Nazi Germany. Srnec (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Although I agreed to support this title, I am now uncomfortable with it. It simply isn't what anybody calls this armistice. I also realised the armistice that ended the Franco-Prussian War was signed by Germany—I thought it was signed before the formation of Germany. I also forgot the Yugoslav armistice of 1941, which was almost certainly illegal and not a "real" armistice, and the Truce of Focșani, which was an armistice. So that makes five or six German armistices total. Srnec (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an improvement IMO, but perhaps it's not perfect. If we can come up with a rough consensus that there's a better title, then we should raise another RM (as the closing comments suggest). But there also seems to be quite a lot of work that could be done first to usefully clarify things.
Perhaps our article armistice could better describe exactly what constitutes an armistice in scholarly terms, with some examples of what doesn't qualify (as well as what does, which seems to already be well covered), and references of course.
The armistice with Russia in December 1917, which was signed by all the Central Powers but which is not currently mentioned as an armistice in our page 1917 (again, details?).
The armistice with France in June 1940, and there are six mentions of armistice on our page 1940, five of them in June so we may have some coverage of this one.
The formal agreement that ended the Second World War in Europe on 8 or 9 May 1945, but which seems not to be an armistice in the technical sense.
Comments? There seem to be a lot of gaps in our coverage of these events, several of which seem to me to be far more serious than the current article name. Andrewa (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Armistice", "truce" and "ceasefire" are sometimes used interchangeably (always distinct from "[peace] treaty"), but are often used in distinct ways. None is a "surrender".
For the armistice of Versailles, see George W. Kyte (1946), "The Vanquished Must Surrender: Jules Favre and the Franco-German Armistice of 1871", Historian, 9: 19–36. I'm intending to work on this. It's a gap.
For the Yugoslav "armistice", see Invasion of Yugoslavia#Armistice and surrender (by me), based on Vladimir Dedijer (1956), "Sur l'armistice «germano-yougoslave» (7 avril 1941) (Peut-on dire qu'il y eut réellement un armistice?)", Revue d'histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, 6 (23): 1–10, which is an extended argument that it wasn't a real armistice, even though it was called that by both sides (in order for the Yugoslavs to save face). Not a big gap, but there is more to be culled from the article.
I just moved the Focsani article. My source is Glenn E. Torrey (1989), "Romania Leaves the War: The Decision to Sign an Armistice, December 1917", East European Quarterly, 23 (3): 283–92. The term "armistice" seems more common generally, considering it's the same type of document as those signed by Russia the same month and by the Central Powers the next fall. I wanted to work on this, but for some reason the website from which I first had access to this article is not now working for accessing this journal.
The German armistice with France in 1940 is the same as the second at Compiègne. There was also a Franco-Italian armistice in June 1940.
We have an article on the Russian armistice of 1917. What are its gaps? (Peace negotiations are part of the treaty article.)
VE Day was the result of an unconditional surrender, not an armistice of any kind. If anything, the term "armistice" has shifted as a result of WWI from meaning "temporary ceasefire" to meaning "end of hostilities pending a peace treaty".
I never pay any attention to categories—one of the areas in which Wikipedia clearly fails.
Armistice of 11 November 1918 works for me. I think very few students in the English Wikipedia will understand the reference to Compiègne. Rjensen (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I think Armistice of 11 November 1918 is the best yet suggested. Do you think we could carry that view in another RM? I guess there's one may to find out for sure...! It could be argued that it's overly precise. Were there other armistices in 1918? Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Armistice of Compiègne (1918) would work, particularly if we also moved Second Armistice at CompiègnetoArmistice of Compiègne (1940) (assuming that name is attested). But I think Armistice of 11 November 1918 is better. Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of this. The German negotiators at the Second Armistice at Compiègne were at pains to call it that (for obvious reasons), and the name has stuck. Andrewa (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've set up a page at Armistice with Germany (disambiguation) summarising the information provided above by Srnec (and who has now corrected me on a number of points there - thank you!) in both the RM discussion and in discussion since.
Whatever the name eventual article name, I think we have some very positive outcomes already, all of them probably more important than the article name, which is primarily just a handle after all, and co-exists with any number of redirects.
There was and I guess still is a great deal of uncertainty as to what the phrase Armistice with Germany can mean. I was astonished to find that there wasn't one to end WWII in Europe, and also surprised to find that there had been so many in Germany's relatively short history. I've now done a quick poll of people around me on the end of WWII, and with a sample size of 12 so far the results are 100% equally surprised as I was that the German Instrument of Surrender wasn't an armistice (I'll henceforth call it the non-armistice). Srnec for their part initially claimed that there were only three, but they've now identified another three, making six in all not counting the non-armistice. People are likely to search for all seven of these as armistice with Germany, and they'll now get the information they want, perhaps not quite as quickly as they might but reasonably quickly.
And five of these real armistices now have articles. Four of them already did before the RM above, but that's progress too. Progress all around in fact. Andrewa (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my defence, the armistice with Yugoslavia, although called that, was really an unconditional surrender. Also, the armistice with France in 1871 took place 10 days after Wilhelm I was proclaimed emperor and before the new imperial constitution came into effect. (Read it here.) Although I myself added that with Romania to the DAB page World War I armistice, I forgot about it during the conversation above. Like that with Russia, it was signed by the Central Powers acting together, but each Central Power subsequently signed separate armistices (and treaties) with the Allies (who acted together). I would not describe the last two as "with Germany" so much as "to which Germany was a party", but that's hair-splitting.
I too was surprised by the total number, but it is inflated by the fact that Germany's bellicose period (1871–1945) corresponds roughly to that during which an armistice became the normal way to exit a war: the losing side asked for one, which was then in effect for the duration of peace negotiations, then a treaty was signed to end the war. That is not really the norm before or since. I'm also surprised by your straw poll. I had no idea people thought that WWII ended with an armistice.
You can call me "he" in the traditional way; I still find singular they jarring. Srnec (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to remember to do that. Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the above: I never pay any attention to categories—one of the areas in which Wikipedia clearly fails. You're free to hold this opinion and take this action, but it does rather undermine the usefulness of your opinions. There's a consensus that categories are useful and important, and most of us will take notice of them I think. In my opinion they are one of the things that most clearly shows the gaps in our coverage of armistices with Germany.
The primary topic for "Armistice with Germany" is the 1918 one. We already have a clear consensus against this above. Accept it. Andrewa (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a clear consensus against this above. I see no such consensus. A consensus to change the title is not a consensus that the existing title leads to the incorrect location. What's more, the consensus in the move request may have been partially based on ignorance. Did the early voters know that this was not the only World War I armistice? The request had nothing to do with whether the primary topic for the then title was indeed the armistice of 11 November 1918. Srnec (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Then I think we should test this with another RM. Andrewa (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting an RM for the current DAB page to the former title of this article? Or do you just mean that we should subject the consensus of this most recent discussion (to move to Armistice of 11 November 1918) to an RM? Srnec (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It's a different discussion but also worthy of an RM. Andrewa (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of an RM for the DAB page to reflect the (in my opinion) consensus that there is no primary meaning. I could be wrong, and I can't think of another way to find out. And if I'm right, we should do the move anyway, and it's obviously controversial enough to require an RM, so there's nothing pointy about this RM. Andrewa (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So did anything come of this? Should I file a RM to Armistice of 11 November 1918? It is what the linked French website uses,『la convention d’armistice du 11 novembre 1918,』and it's probably slightly more recognizable. SnowFire (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To quote "was agreed at 5am on 11 November, to come into effect at 11am Paris time". But when was it actually signed?101.98.209.132 (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First Armistice at Compiègne → Armistice of 11 November 1918 – There was some support for this title above. The current title is not how this armistice is usually identified. It wasn't the "first" at the time, and if anything it is the armistice of Compiègne, not at it. Srnec (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've always know it as The Armistice or by it's proper name Conditions de l'armistice conclu avec l'Allemagne (English short from being Armistice with Germany ) however I recognize that the proper name is not the common name in English. Armistice of 11 November 1918 appears to have 3,880 Google book hits [2] while First Armistice at Compiègne has 5 hits.[3].『Armistice of Compiègne』1918 had 355 hits[4] and『Compiègne Armistice』1918 had 283 hits[5]. In all instance it appears that Armistice of 11 November 1918 is the most common.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support we now have a poor title that will confuse readers, if they can find this page--it does not match any textbook or main reference book. Rjensen (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My personal experience is that the French employ the name Armistice du 22 juin 1940, so Armistice of 22 June 1940. Yale Law's copy of the translated version of the agreement is Armistice Agreement and the German High Command of the Armed Forces and French Plenipotentiaries, Compiègne, June 22 1940 so I'd support either Armistice at Compiègne, Armistice of 22 June 1940orFranco-German Armistice of 22 June 1940.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A definite improvement for many reasons expressed above. Andrewa (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have just modified 2 external links on Armistice of 11 November 1918. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Leaving a note here about article content about the railway carriage and its history, which was removed here. If it can be correctly cited (corrected if needed) and added back at some point when someone has the time, that would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: There is an article (of which the content seems quite similar to what was already in) about the subject (and it is properly sourced), Compiègne Wagon. Whether that title follows WP:COMMONNAME or not is another issue, but I have temporarily added a see also template link to it. Feel free to improve on it. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. I missed that in the rush. Will try to get back to it at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only includes allied soldiers. Even more than 100 years after the war the krauts are not considered human beings? Same in the French version of the article. In the German version no information on last soldiers killed... Crotopaxi (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed what appeared to be an erroneous punctuation in the header of the first subsection titled "Deteriorating situation for the Germans.", I altered it to be "Deteriorating situation for the Germans" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.228.1 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "last casualties" section does not mention Germany because it was unclear who was the last German soldier to fall, we should mention that. Here's an example:
"To this day, it is unclear who was the last German soldier to fall." Poopykibble (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
