The First World War ended on 11th Nov at 11:00. But my question is why? If peace has been agreed (The armistice was signed at 5:00), why not stop the fighting with immediate effect rather than have further pointless deaths?

I know that communications wouldn't have been as quick as now, but they had to let their men know to stop fighting at 11:00, so why not just say "stop fighting now"?

  • 23
    Not a full answer, but presumably so that there was a single, easily remembered time to communicate to everyone. You wouldn't want to tell your troops to stand down now if you didn't know the enemy also was told to stand down, and wouldn't want the time to be confused by messengers. – Giter Mar 20 '18 at 22:52
  • 13
    "Stop fighting now" can be an issue if the enemy does not know that they are supposed to stop fighting, too. Also, it seems that some officers had ordered to stop offensive actions days before while other wanted to push until the last minute, here is a very interesting link. – SJuan76 Mar 20 '18 at 22:57
  • 15
    Remember the War of 1812 - a war that was started after the British had agreed to the American position, and the peace treaty was signed before the Battle of New Orleans was fought? That's an example of why you need to agree on a date in the future, and ensure that all sides have full confidence and assurance that everyone involved will stop fighting. Otherwise you risk reigniting the war. – Mark C. Wallace Mar 20 '18 at 23:05
  • 1
    Also, 11 am is the twelfth hour. (First hour starts at midnight, second hour at 1am.) – billpg Mar 21 '18 at 11:55
  • 1
    @billpg: Its the start of the twelfth hour and the end of the 11th hour. So after eleven hours... Seems legit to me. – Chris Mar 22 '18 at 10:21

Communications weren't quick

It would have taken hours for the news to reach all the units on the western front. Radios were not in widespread use, so many telephone calls would have had to be made to many headquarters. They would then have had to send messengers to all their sub-units that didn't have telephones.

If one side stops shooting, and the other doesn't, fighting will just restart

There would be no way to guarantee that the word of the cease-fire, spreading separately on the two sides of the lines, would reach the same areas at the same time. So if side A got an order "Stop fighting immediately," and side B hadn't heard, A would stop, and B would carry on, causing casualties on side A. In fact B would be more effective than usual, because they weren't having to look out for enemy fire. Pretty soon, A would start firing again, because being shot at while having the means to shoot back, but being forbidden to do so is very hard on the nerves.

So it was necessary to give some notice if everyone was to stop simultaneously.

  • 1
    B wouldn't know that. – Strawberry Mar 21 '18 at 10:33
  • 4
    @Angew Absence of a positive isn't proof of a negative. Leastwise when the positive is a bullet! – Strawberry Mar 21 '18 at 14:28
  • 16
    As a case example, the final ceasefire between Finland and Soviet Union was agreed on September 2, 1944, and both sides were to stop on September 4 at 8:00. But apparently due to communication delays, the Soviet side was a day late (at least in some locations). Thankfully this did not escalate, but one has to wonder whether allowing one more day before ceasefire on both days would have resulted in less total casualties on the final day. – JiK Mar 21 '18 at 14:35
  • 3
    As another example, the Battle of New Orleans that is largely credited with bringing Andrew Jackson to prominence (and later, the presidency of the USA) famously occurred days after the War of 1812 was over (the treaty having been signed in France and not having had remotely enough time to reach either side in New Orleans). – KRyan Mar 21 '18 at 19:18
  • 3
    @KRyan Weeks, actually. The treaty was signed on Dec 24, while the main (attempted) assault of the battle occurred on Jan 8. Hostilities continued until February 13, when the British learned of the treaty while preparing to attack Mobile, AL. It didn't help that the treaty was signed in Ghent, which requires well over 5,000 miles of sailing to get to New Orleans (BRU-MIA-MSY is over 5,300 miles, according to gcmap.) There were no radios or 777s back then. – reirab Mar 22 '18 at 8:27

I appreciate your answers the truth of the matter is the allied leadership wanted a historic time. The allies continued to send Soldiers into battle between 5am and 11am. In other words we continued to prosecute the war resulting in more casualties in order to have that historic time.

  • 5
    " the allied leadership wanted a historic time" - do you have some sources to support that assertion? – Steve Bird Nov 12 '18 at 20:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.