AHWI: No schlieffen plan
- Thread starter Brak
- Start date
No Schlieffen plan doesn't mean that,in fact nobody gives a damn about Luxembourg, but if Germany take 1905 as a sign Russia as a house of cards, them they would counter plan XVII with the eltass Lothringen trenches and go east against Russia.
Also France might invade Belgium instead
I feel like Britain still eventually gets involved; it's probably later, but they're not gonna just let their biggest geopolitical rival have a blank check to take over continental Europe, including Britain's strongest allies (particularly France) and opportunities (particularly the Ottoman Empire). It'd be like the United States sitting back while China invades Taiwan, Korea, and Japan: unthinkable. I could see Britain getting involved in 1916, maybe: that might be when Germany shoots through Belgium, and if it's even later by 1917 I could see Germany bringing hardened reserves trained in Russia (which was all but out of the war by the February Revolution) to punch through British doughboys. Without a naval blockade, Germany can stockpile food and prepare for one far earlier than the sudden assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Britain wanted to get involved in WW1 as early as July, but public opinion didn't let them open up a can of Scatman John on Germany until Belgium's invasion.
Is it enough for Germany to win? Debatable. I personally see the possibility, but I doubt its feasibility: America is also likely to get involved at some point (it needs those debts from France and the UK!), and if the British still successfully blockade Germany it becomes a matter of attrition that the Entente is far more likely to win. That's how they won in our own timeline, after all. Much like WW2, Germany gambled everything on high-energy, crippling early-stage attacks that tore through unprepared and underdefended territories before attrition completely wore them down. Unlike WW2, however, WW1 was winnable for Germany: it's a definite possibility that can't be ignored. The best-case scenario I think is the one I brought up earlier: Germany defeats Russia by 1917 and brings over hardened troops from the East to punch through Belgium and northern France, aiming for Amiens and maybe even Paris itself.
Is it enough for Germany to win? Debatable. I personally see the possibility, but I doubt its feasibility: America is also likely to get involved at some point (it needs those debts from France and the UK!), and if the British still successfully blockade Germany it becomes a matter of attrition that the Entente is far more likely to win. That's how they won in our own timeline, after all. Much like WW2, Germany gambled everything on high-energy, crippling early-stage attacks that tore through unprepared and underdefended territories before attrition completely wore them down. Unlike WW2, however, WW1 was winnable for Germany: it's a definite possibility that can't be ignored. The best-case scenario I think is the one I brought up earlier: Germany defeats Russia by 1917 and brings over hardened troops from the East to punch through Belgium and northern France, aiming for Amiens and maybe even Paris itself.
Why in the world would they do that? Belgium's independence was guaranteed by the United Kingdom as far back as 1835. The United Kingdom would absolutely come to Belgium's defense: Belgium is a crucial ally of the UK at this time, being a buffer state against both France and Germany that gives the UK a stronghold as well as a safe base of operations on the Continent.
Plan XVI(early versions) did called for a invasion of Belgium to attack the weak flank of the rhine, also depends what france saw in 1914, if the germans are fully trenched and feel russia is collapsing, they would, for the quick victory gamble,
That is not a certainty. Belgian diplomats before WW I believed that Britain's alliance with France would be more important than the guarantees. They concluded this after after the lacklustre support of Britain in earlier diplomatic crises like 1866, when Britain evaded several requests from the Belgian government to make clear to France that Britain would intervene if Napoleon III would continue his plan to annex Belgium. And that was even before the Entente cordial was formed.
It's also worth noting that both the geography and layout of the railways mean that Belgium provides way more value to the Germans than the to the French. The German-Belgian border is short and a large part of it is covered in the same hilly terrain that makes Alsace-Lorraine hard to attack, while the French border is longer and has plain sections. The French would end up fighting in a narrow stretch of land that would do little to help them.
As for the railways, they all converge in Aachen. This means that while the Germans are able to spread out once they are in Belgium, the French are headed into a bottleneck.
The French could theoretically also invade the Netherlands, which would alleviate this issues, but that would bring other issues of its own.
Those debts were backed by collateral and its far from certain that they'd even exist. The Rape of Belgium was major factor in the pro-Entente leanings of American neutrality.
The French war Plan XVII imply to invade south Belgium and Luxemburg to encounter the Germans forces at there border
They march into Belgium in august 1914, but push out by German forces invading Belgium and north France
The British cabinet had already ruled by the end of July 1914 that its obligations towards Belgium would not determine British policy. We know from the German invasion that this decision was not intended to give Germany a pass through Belgium, so by process of elimination, that leaves France.
In terms of why France would want to expand the front against Germany, the reason for that is it was allied with Russia. If the Germans were allowed to dictate the neutrality of Belgium and Luxembourg, then the French options to attack along the German frontier were, essentially, hopeless. The French would be held off at little effort by the Germans, and the Germans could move the bulk of their forces east against the Russians, who would be increasingly bitter towards their ally for their inaction.
If Germany drop Schlieffen Plan
They can go for russia first and does defences on West front to keep France at bay
German respecting the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg will bring the Entente in problem
The 1839 treaty of London guarantee the neutrality of Belgium, under protection of British empire against any aggressor !
This imply also French army under Plan XVII
However the British empire stay put on two point: respect the neutrality of Belgium and fight against Germany.
here the French have to abandon Plan XVII in exchange for British help by BEF in France and in colonies.
what options has Entente ?
One is invade neutral Luxemburg to get behind German west frontline
What political delicate since German respect neutrality for moment.
other options are invade the Ottomans and open third front in Europe, this became the infamous Gallipoli campaign
or invade the balkans from Greece and move to Austria-Hungary.
on long term Russia will fall under German forces and sign peace treaty
now will German Army focus on West front and one question,
Will Germany violate the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg to attack France ?
They can go for russia first and does defences on West front to keep France at bay
German respecting the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg will bring the Entente in problem
The 1839 treaty of London guarantee the neutrality of Belgium, under protection of British empire against any aggressor !
This imply also French army under Plan XVII
However the British empire stay put on two point: respect the neutrality of Belgium and fight against Germany.
here the French have to abandon Plan XVII in exchange for British help by BEF in France and in colonies.
what options has Entente ?
One is invade neutral Luxemburg to get behind German west frontline
What political delicate since German respect neutrality for moment.
other options are invade the Ottomans and open third front in Europe, this became the infamous Gallipoli campaign
or invade the balkans from Greece and move to Austria-Hungary.
on long term Russia will fall under German forces and sign peace treaty
now will German Army focus on West front and one question,
Will Germany violate the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg to attack France ?
AFAIK the British Parliament had already decided to get involved in WW1 and only used the Schlieffen Plan as an excuse, so the declaration of war is delayed by a week.
The OP didn't mention the usual east first. So Germany could still do west first but without invading Belgium, if so it might make some sense to move into the Longwy and Briery basin along the French border, both to prevent their being used by France, and to forward protect German ore fields in Lorraine, in this scenario the Germans have the density to hold upper Alsace.
No attempt to actually take the French fortress cities, but the bulk of the army still west to defeat French counter attacks.
2 corps are sent east immediately to east Prussia and 1 corps (and 1 cavalry division) sent to Silesia to assist the Austrians on their flank.
The Austrians are expected to keep the second army in Serbia and defeat the Serbians (or at least occupy Belgrade).
Basically the Germans attack neither east nor west, wait on events, defeat any attempt at invasion sharply, defeat the Serbs, secure a favorable peace conference.
(with out any German invasion east or west, Britain could stay neutral for a bit, making a quick peace much more likely, if the Germans were making reasonable demands)
No attempt to actually take the French fortress cities, but the bulk of the army still west to defeat French counter attacks.
2 corps are sent east immediately to east Prussia and 1 corps (and 1 cavalry division) sent to Silesia to assist the Austrians on their flank.
The Austrians are expected to keep the second army in Serbia and defeat the Serbians (or at least occupy Belgrade).
Basically the Germans attack neither east nor west, wait on events, defeat any attempt at invasion sharply, defeat the Serbs, secure a favorable peace conference.
(with out any German invasion east or west, Britain could stay neutral for a bit, making a quick peace much more likely, if the Germans were making reasonable demands)
Garrison
Donor
Okay but what are you proposing instead? Some 1914 equivalent of Case Yellow? Or the Central Powers strike east only? What's your take?
My only POD is that Belgium and Luxembourg are not attacked. I dunno what they would have done otherwise
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
This can work for Germany to *win* a *diplomatic* victory, security by a live, lethal, expensive demonstration of military superiority. So it would not quite be "winning the Great War". So, it would be countable as a win, but not the kind of win sought by the Schlieffen Plan.
It *can* work if Entente and British governments and publics are highly sensitive to political and diplomatic factors, feel a need to assure themselves and the outside world they are "in the right", and judge skeptically that any war effort, especially a protracted one, to force Germany and Austria-Hungary to release Serbia from "captivity" ----- the Central Powers would call it "accountability", must be "really worth the blood of our men".
If, the Entente governments and publics instead, are up in an anti-Austrian, anti-German lather, worked up over their *overreaction* and collective punishment of poor little Serbia, committed to protecting Slavdom and Orthodoxy, determined to halt Teutonic bullying and redeem Alsace-Lorraine, and for Britain-- resisting their rising naval and commercial challenger.....and if the Entente governments and publics can remain high on their own supply and indignation indefinitely, or its functional equivalent, 18 months or two years...........with mobilization they will accrue major advantages making German and Austrian maintenance of its forward defensive lines of territorial integrity and/or the occupation of Serbia, unworkable, and placing them in a position where a deeper Entente invasion, occupation, is inevitable, and if they wish, a partition is entirely possible.
So, the approach you discuss is workable, but only under a particular set of political/behavioral assumptions about Entente intentions/constraints/restraints. If those assumptions are wrong, the approach become sub-optimal to neglectful to suicidal-by-omission.
Sry but NO.
The Parlaiment had nothing to do with it at all. The decisions for war were made only by the cabinet in every stage of the story. The parliament acted solely as an 'acclamation' forum.
That's at least as the intra- and postwar 'victors' historiography tells us. If one would take the effort and read up the Parlaiments debate at the evening of 3rd August one could learn how opposed Greys 'belligerency' of the afternoon actually was (but be aware: it might somewhat ... besmirch beloved beliefs into grampas histories).
Last edited:
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
The Germans should have prepared and executed a plan to go east and wreck Russia in the first good weather period after Tsar Nicky's Ministers made him admit to Kaiser Willy, "oh, so sorry, my obligations to France preclude me from conforming with that lovely treaty we agreed to at Bjorko". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Björkö
That should have been proof beyond all previous proof and doubt that any Russian friendliness or reciprocation of German friendly overtures was pretty much instrumental and one-sided, and Russia was too addicted to French loans to ever renounce, even when under distress, its commitment to help France in two-front war on Germany.
Using the "gift" of that strategic insight, the German government of the day owed it to its nation's interest, and alliance partner's interest to attack Russia ASAP, kick it when it is down with revolution and another front of war in the Far East, weaken it, and destabilize it as much as possible, securing a layer of non-Russian governed buffer states between remaining Russian territory and German territory, or directly governing former Russian territory colonially as a protective buffer if no other choice is available.
Unironically that was when Russia was still licking his wounds of the Russo japanese war
The basic choices in the immediate aftermath of such a decision would be to either hold the full strength of the Western German armies in the West, or to disburse some of the forces, (perhaps about 1.5 armies) eastward. The advantage to holding the full strength cocked and ready in the West is that if the French invaded the Ardennes, (after August 20th), then it might be possible for the German right to unleash a devastating counterattack upon the French 4th and 5th Armies as these reached the eastern regions of the Ardennes.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
And better yet, still receiving fresh wounds! Call in the Japanese Ambassador and tell him, “you’ve been very impressive. You of course owe it to yourself, despite any peace talks, to keep fighting on against the Russians until you have you have collected and gathered every last gold ruble and every last verst of Russian and Manchurian land your martial courage and skill entitles you to. Japan need never sell itself short!”