A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 11, 2006, November 11, 2007, November 11, 2008, November 11, 2011, November 11, 2016, November 11, 2018, and November 11, 2021.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Europe Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Germany Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European / French / German / World War I 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force French military history task force German military history task force World War I task force

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]

here's a good article on men killed right before the armistice http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7696021.stm

From the article:

11 AM Paris time (that is, 11 AM GMT)

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

US newspapers said 11:00 Paris time was 6:00 Washington time. Library of Congress Mgarraha (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Would this article also benefit from referencing oor linking to the book Gossip from the Forest by Thomas Keneally that gives a fictional depiction of the signing of the Armistice? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_from_the_Forest — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiernMoran (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 September 2011 (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]

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 Category:Armistices could usefully contain a subcategory Armistices with Germany. Would that be a good start?

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.

There may even be scope for an overview article on armistices with Germany, or perhaps at least a List of Armistices with Germany. Andrewa (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarise, we now have in all eight candidates (of various credentials) for the Wikipedia article title Armistice with Germany:

• This article.
• The truce that ended the Franco-Prussian War, which doesn't seem to be covered by that article (so, can anyone provide more details?).
• The Yugoslav armistice of 1941, which is a redlink and not currently mentioned as an armistice on our page 1941 (so can anyone provide more details?).
• The Truce of Focșani, currently at Armistice of Focșani but not a member of Category:Armistices.
• The Second Armistice at Compiègne, also not currently a member of Category:Armistices.
• 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.

The primary topic for "Armistice with Germany" is the 1918 one. What about Armistice of 11 November 1918 or Armistice of Compiègne (1918)? —Srnec (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Compiègne to Armistice 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]

• Just the date works for me, so Armistice of 11 November 1918 would be good. Would strongly prefer to avoid parentheses. Also, to my limited knowledge Second Armistice at Compiègne really is known by that name, so that one shouldn't need to move. SnowFire (talk) 17:57, 17 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]

I recommend we test Armistice of 11 November 1918) with a new RM Rjensen (talk) 03:08, 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]

yes please file a RM to Armistice of 11 November 1918 Rjensen (talk) 22:42, 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]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140711212324/http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/waffenstillstand/index.html to http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/waffenstillstand/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125224403/http://nfb.ca:80/curated-selection/world-war-I-armistice/ to http://www.nfb.ca/curated-selection/world-war-I-armistice/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Waffenstillstand gr.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]