My comparison referred to the blockade on food shipments to Germany, not necessarily Poland. It was intended as a comparison, as I said, not as a statement.
No Schlieffen Plan
- Thread starter Mac Gregor
- Start date
My comparison referred to the blockade on food shipments to Germany, not necessarily Poland. It was intended as a comparison, as I said, not as a statement.
Thank you Gentlemen these were more the comments I was looking for from those that say Germany would be less likely to win the war.
So is it impossible for the Germans to launch a major offensive from Alsace Lorraine? If so is this due to the lack of infrastructure or are the French fortifications to powerful?
If Germany plans for a defensive stand in the west or an offensive through there (not Belgium) then the issue of train schedules is moot - the schedules will be in place for the planned deployment. One one interpretation of WWI is that because of the inflexibility of train schedules once mobilization had started it could not be stopped or recalled because whoever did that would have a mess to unscramble if the fighting did start.
Germany could consider a "reverse" Schlieffen - limited offensive in France to seize some key bits but basically defensive, while going east to seize a defensible line & getting Russia to sue for peace.
Germany could consider a "reverse" Schlieffen - limited offensive in France to seize some key bits but basically defensive, while going east to seize a defensible line & getting Russia to sue for peace.
Most of France's iron, much of its coal, and Belgium's accumulated stockpiles of nitrates.
I would think they would also hope to use the occupations as a bargaining chip at the peace table, but that's just an inference.
Would these have doomed the German war effort if they weren't seized?
Worse than that: Not only is Moltke headed straight into the teeth of the Metz-Toul fortifications, he's running into the cream of the French Army preparing to launch its attack into Lorraine as called for in Plan XVII.
No, if the Germans aren't going through the Low Countries, they're not going at all. They'll stay on the defensive if they give up going through Belgium. But that's not what the OP seemed to have in mind, so...
Snake Featherston
Banned
The latter plus the difficulty of launching a massive offensive that can and will be easily struck in the flanks on both ends. That's not tactics, that's Leeroy Jenkinsism.
It would hurt. Not least because France, in turn would have had access to all that territory, which was some of its most industrialized.
On the other hand . . .
The balance might be made good depending on the British response. If indeed Germany stays on the defensive in the West - which, I know, is not what the original post proposed - and makes no ridiculous demands on France, then I think it is hard to disagree with DerGrief's conclusion that Asquith would have been forced to remain neutral, at least initially. However much Grey and Churchill hoped for a justification to come to France's assistance, a German defensive posture in Lorraine simply won't provide it. The most Asquith could manage would be a benevolent neutrality, keeping the High Seas Fleet out of the Channel and providing economic and financial assistance.
And that in turn could mean that Germany might still have some access to overseas markets for these resources. Britain could not really justify a blockade, so the only threat to German shipping would be the French Navy . . . which was mainly committed to the Mediterranean.
To say nothing of the logistics of trying to cram so many troops into such a narrow front - and support them, too.
Of course, after running smack into the French 1st, 2nd and 3rd armies in front of Metz, there'd be a lot less troops to support before too long...
Snake Featherston
Banned
And this is something where the French offensive producing high losses is not in the least an actual help in this regard, as the French only have to concentrate more armies and the BEF and its successor forces, to boot. Say what you will about the German army's ability to win wars in this timeframe, it was very smart about how it fought battles. And this is completely stupid as far as that goes.
BlondieBC
Banned
That is not true in 1915. The combination of the Russians burning the country combined with war during the growing season creates food shortages. The UK illegal blockade means Poles starve.
And you are missing the point. It was mostly the brilliant UK PR campaign not the actual actions on the ground that results in the Germans looking bad, so changing the German actions does not help a lot. If a few thousand (6000) dead Belgians are killed WITHIN the rule of war and many 10,000's of Poles die to the UK BREAKING the rules of war, it is not a fact issue that hurt Germany.
The UK deserves credit for a Brilliant PR war in WW1.
BlondieBC
Banned
The UK should have had a huge PR loss due to the food blockade, much bigger than the Lusitania and Belgium shootings combined. Yet the starving Poles/Belgians forced by the UK actions get almost no press coverage.
The UK advantage was that almost all their actions got favorable coverage even if the actions were clearly against the customs of war. The Germans got bad coverage for actions that were of smaller net dead and were in the grey, not black area. Shooting of civilians for partisans activities was OK back then. The USA did it in the civil war. The only grey part was whether the Germans killed by snipers were retreating soldiers or done by civilians. The Lusitania was listed as an warship on the official roles, this made it a legal target regardless of other considerations. It was also flying a neutral flag, had orders to ram submarines, and was carry items on the absolute contraband list of the UK. Despite all these facts, the Germans get 10 times more negative press in the USA as the UK got.
First off, BlondieBC, when you say good PR or look favorably, to whom are you referring? Good PR with their own citizens? Looking favorably to the Americans?
Second:
Second:
Can you explain what this sentence means? Maybe I'm just tired but I can't figure out what is what in it.
BlondieBC
Banned
Dumber things have been done in history, and sometimes bizarre results happen. But after saying the caveat, the terrain is too rough, the french have too high a ratio of force to front, the fortifications are of good quality, so it would simply be a bloody failure to try to attack through A-L. Early in WW1 on the Western Front, there was a lot of movement. An attack though A-L results in almost immediate trench warfare after one side or the other realize the mistake of being on the offensive. Look at Italy/A-H for an example of what it would be like. A-L is easier terrain, but the French Army will have a lot more men and material per mile than the Austrians.
Crippling Frances heavy industry (80% of Steel). Flanders is a good food growing region, so Entente also lost agricultural production. French lands controlled don't contribute new class of men each year for the fight. France felt the need to be on the offensive to gain "sacred soil". It helped cripple France finances buying materials that would have been produced in the heavy industrial region. Germany also looted Belgium of livestock and metals, which were of a big help for the first year of the war.
BlondieBC
Banned
If the UK enters the war anyway, Yes. If the UK stays out of the war, it would help Germany. Whenever the wisdom of the Schlieffen Plan comes up, it is really a debate about the UK internal politics. The fact it is still seriously debated about 100 years later shows that the UK performed poorly in communicating its intentions and thereby deterring Germany.
BlondieBC
Banned
Good PR in the USA. Each wartime country censored its own press, so it had good internal PR. Italy, Bulgaria, Ottomans, and Romania each made cold, calculating decision. The USA public opinion was the only one that really mattered, unless you see some way to bring Switzerland, Sweden or Norway into the war.
In WW1 and before, you were allowed to shoot civilians to deter partisan activity. So for example, you could legally declare that for each German solider shot by civilians, you would shoot 10 Belgian civilians in retaliation. The Entente declared that the Belgians civilians were not shooting the Germans but retreating uniform French/Belgium soldiers. If the Entente assertion is true, Germany committed war crimes. If not, Germany behaved properly. Since many/most of the shootings occurred in the first months of the war, either side could be correct. Without independent observers at the time, we lack the objective historical information to know the truth of each sides claim. The USA had done the same in the ACW.
I think it was the way you structured that sentence that confused me.
It still does.
Thank you.
As others already pointed out, straight attack into the French fortress line would be a bad idea, although it was tossed around. Any plans for offensives in the west, which did not rely on the Schlieffen-plan were committed to awaiting a French attack first, and then reacting flexibly by launching appropriate counterattacks into the flanks of the attacking French (through Luxemburg or th Vosges mountains). Only then an attack into the fortress line was considered viable. Ludendorf and Bauer were preparing for such attacks by researching very heavy siege guns. If Ludendorff and Bauer have had their way, Germany would have invested in more pieces of the gamma-device. It proved to be devastating to the Belgian fortresses but for some reason was never properly deployed against the stronger-built French forts, so there is not enough data available to assess a possible success against them. It will remain speculation, although one can say that they would have had a greater impact than the ones used in OTL. Anyway plans to target the fortress line of Toul and Nancy were made in OTL. Here is an interesting map on OTL French attacks and German counterattacks which also shows some of the fortifocations in question. The upper border towards the Longwy-Briey basin ist sadly missing. As one can see there is a narrow gap between the fortresses of Toul and Nancy on the one hand and the fortification line Epinal-Belfort. If Toul-Nancy can be neutralised, Germany has a chance in succeeding to break through.
Others mentioned already some important aspects. But I still have some doubts about the iron ore. A quick internet research revealed that according to the Encylopedia Americana from 1918 80 % of French iron ore was produced in the minette beds of Moselle. I have found a map (although from 1972) which shows only one large ore field between the Meuse and the Moselle, actually the Longwy-Briey basin. And that can be obtained and occupied by a counterattack without the need of going through Belgium. If there were other even better developed regions further in the north I don't know (yet), maybe around Maubeuge? This is still an open point in my research to-do-list.
With regards to Belgium one should note that Belgium if not occupied might still be a valuable trading partner for Germany.
But for definite conclusions I have to research these issues more in depth.
Kind regards,
G.