Alsace and Lorraine were not taken into German control as a result of some plebescite. They were not returned to French control by one either. Caesers dictum about the winners getting to do pretty much what they want held true then, and now. This isn't a particularly cheery aspect of human interaction in conflict, but it has a long history.


Germany, after three years of war and the horror that was Verdun, took advantage of Russia's internal weakness and problems and won in the East, imposing the Treaty of Brest Litovsk to try and secure resources without frittering away troops. The British attempted to counter this unilateral treaty by intervening in North Russia to engender a collapse of the Bolshevik forces and a return of the pro-war Whites. The Treaty of Brest Litovsk was grossly one-sided. Russia's internal troubles, however, were so great that the Bolsheviks felt compelled to accept them in order to maintain their hold on the rest of Russia.

Despite finally hitting on the correct tactics to break the deadlock on the Western Front, Germany lacked the deep reserves it once had. Even with the reduced troop requirements in the East, they had too few troops to make it work. Their offensive worked very well at first, but eventally stalled. Ludendorff ran the numbers and realized that Germany could no longer attack, would be progressively more and more out-numbered while on the defense, and would not get enough resources out of Poland, Belorussia, and the Ukraine fast enough to compensate for the massive shortages they had begun to face. Rather than continuing to a full conclusion involving the invasion of Germany and the smashing of its cities, he called it quits. This was communicated to the Kaiser as early as August of 1918.

The Versailles Treaty was signed by a Germany that had gone through two revolutions, two changes of government, and the abdication of the Kaiser between October 28th 1918 and June 1st 1919. As had the Bolsheviks at Brest Litovsk, they had gotten to a point where they HAD TO sign any treaty to end the threat of foreign invasion.

Apparently the "stab in the back" Ludendorff so trumpeted was largely a fabrication. There was a "peace now" opposition, but they never really had any say in things until the government broke down after the armistice. The naval revolt was a bit parallel to the one in Russia, but really only got triggered when the sailors thought their officers would order them to attack Jellicoe and company in large-scale viking funeral effort. They didn't like that. However, this hardly counts as a "stab in the back" by the home front -- this was a naval mutiny. Ludendorff claimed he wanted to renew the war in October of 1918, but the government had already changed and was moving towards armistice and refused....the same government that Ludendorff himself had engendered so as to have the civilians rather than the military do the surrendering. He was lining them up to scapegoat them with the Armistice from the get-go as near as I can figure it. The "stab in the back" was compelling politics, but about as substantive as basing an entire campaign on hope and change.