I'm interested in an objective opinion without an hindsight bias. This article seems to answer 'yes' to my question, but is it true?
[General John] Pershing’s postwar claim that he had had no official knowledge of the impending armistice before being informed by Foch’s headquarters at 6 a.m. was disingenuous.
[Brig. Gen. John Sherburne:] But there were certain very glaring instances of the opposite condition, and especially among these theorists, these men who were looking upon this whole thing as, perhaps one looks upon a game of chess, or a game of football, and who were removed from actual contact with the troops.
According to Brig. Gen. John Sherburne, many commanders ‘were anxious to gain as much ground as possible’ before the armistice took effect.
In the end, Congress found no one culpable for the deaths that had occurred during the last day, even the last hours of World War I.
I mean this isn't really a question for historians to answer. Regardless the armistice did not come into effect yet, obviously fighting would ensue until the armistice. The purpose was to have a single, recognizable time so that everyone would know to stop fighting at the same time and allow orders to be dissolved out to men. The goal was that the armistice would not be broken accidentally.
So yeah the war continued until it stopped. The pejorative way that second paragraph was worded though just kind of paints the authors intent. Ultimately any conjecture based on painting "the generals", who died in greater number and proportion from front line deaths than any other war in history, as detached Satan's who don't have a soul is worthless. You should be very wary of these narratives.