From what I have read, after 1917, both Britain and France were beating Germany in terms of production.  Turkey was also about to fall, thus unhinging the German's southern flank.  German rolling stock was also insufficient to carry the resources of the territories gained by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk along with the German soldiers on that front, Germany would have to choose one or the other.

I believe that if the Germans had taken Paris at any time after 1917, it would have stretched their troops to the breaking point and their tenuous hold on Paris and occupied France would have been easily shattered and they would have been soundly defeated by the Allies.

Hello!
I disagree. With "operation Michael" in 1918 germany was close to "flood" the french/british lines. Unfortunately (for them), they didn`t act quick enough, else they could have captured paris.

/Capa

Even if they did capture Paris, it would have stretched them extremely thin and exhausted their resources to such an extent that they would have been defeated.  If they did manage to hold on in the West, the British Navy was crippling their war industries, their other fronts were collapsing, and America was about to throw even more might against them.  After 1917, the Germans could at best hope for a diplomatic end to the war.

It wouldn't have mattered if they could hold Paris indefinately or not, because if that occurred than the war would have been won for Germany, naval defeat or no.  There's no way that a WWI D-Day could have happened had Germany overran France.

During the French mutiny soldiers refused to go on partol or participate in offensives: no soldiers adandoned their trenches or refused to hold them. THe french were just disgusted with the disregard for the tens of thousands of lives wasted in offensives that went nowhere. 

So no, i dont think i great push by the german army would have been succesful if it coincided with the mutiny.

Even if the French line broke, there were British and a few American divisions to hold them back. Plus the Germans troops were extremely tired and demoralized too (htere had been few naval mutinies right before), so it isn't likely that they would been an effective assault force.

Plus there was the South-East Front where Frenco-Serb-Montenegro troops were defeating the Bulgarians who were allied to Germans.

From what I've heard, which is very little. The french army mutiny was of french imperial troops. That is Arabs and black africans who rebelled against there officers and started to march south to try and find ships to take them across the mediterainian sea to africa.

 I don't think that might be true, because the Senegalese and Morrocans (among the arabs) were very good soldiers. Unfortunately due to racism of the time, many articles were written against them and most of them were fake. I've heard the germans were very scared of the senegalese. There was one case where some senegalese soldiers captured some germans, and immediately the Germans would run to hide behind the french officer accompanying the sengalese. This can also show they were actually fierce soldiers.  I think these people who died for France also deserved a lot of respect.

 The mutiny was rather justified, not to mention that the germans also mutinied and in there case their country was in chaos even before the allies would have invaded it.

But actually Blacks faced less discrimination in Europe than in America... This awareness was one of the factors that sparked the Civil Rights Movement.

I respect the Sengalese. But Moroccans soldiers are in general cruel and attrocious, according to what I have heard. They commited unspeakable attrocities against French invaders, and later on in Italy during WWII, they were abominated murderers and rapists.