First World War without a Western Front stalemate

[acgoldis]

Hi!

What was the likelihood that the First World War would not have had the bloody stalemate on the Western Front? I was thinking something along the lines of one army (probably the Germans) managing to get far enough ahead of the French to cut off further progress to the north and chewing up their line.

Furthermore, what would the impact on European society (and the world) been with a fluid Western Front?

[Grey Wolf]

I can't see it remaining fluid. It WAS fluid until it settled down in OTL

I don't think modern warfare would admit of a Frederick of Brunswick/Battle of Minden style of front anymore.

The problem IMHO is that either the front bogs down or someone wins. In A Feast of Eagles I did try to have a somewhat more fluid Western Front, but that is basically one that consists of breakthroughs which are then halted, the front bogs down again before the next year's campaigning season brings similar.

That MIGHT be possible since it was what the generals aimed at. The problem is that if one side gains too many of these breakthroughs the war is won.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[acgoldis]

I was expecting that this would result in a short war. A short war without tremendous loss of life would have a BIG cultural impact, to say the least. Europe will still have most of its prestige, and "Versailles" wouldn't be as harsh for the loser.

The premise is one side manages to outflank the other before everyone digs in and mops up the enemy that way. The Eastern Front had much less of a stalemate. The Germans didn't have to endure a stalemate in the Second World War, either.

[Atlantic Friend]

I was expecting that this would result in a short war. A short war without tremendous loss of life would have a BIG cultural impact, to say the least. Europe will still have most of its prestige, and "Versailles" wouldn't be as harsh for the loser.

I agree. Mobile warfare on both Eastern and Western front should lead to a somewhat shorter war (bearing in mind mobile warfare 1918 isn't the same as mobile warfare 1939). The war should be less cruel to the belligerents, perhaps allowing the ancient order of things to survive.

Also, a shorter war, with lesser casualties would indeed make for lighter peace terms, as the conflict doesn't degenerate into a zero-sum game. On the Western front, the belligerents have little to demand to each other as their political borders - with the exception of the disputed Alsace-Lorraine - match their national limits.

A victorious Triple Alliance would probably entail the less dramatic changes - minor border and colonial adjustments for the most part, but that means Europe 1918 is in the exact same situation as Europe 1914, with the same forces at work (Austro-Hungarian national question, Austro-Russian competition in the Balkans, French revanchism, etc.)

A victorious Triple Entente causes more political upheaval (Austria-Hungary probably implodes, Germany loses more territory than it could have reasonably hoped to gain, etc), but ushers in a new (maybe better, maybe worse) era.

[acgoldis]

Assume the Germans win for now, probably no later than early 1915. That's probably more likely given what was going on at the time. Would that just set the stage for another war later on as the structural problems were still there?

[Gosing]

Assume the Germans win for now, probably no later than early 1915. That's probably more likely given what was going on at the time. Would that just set the stage for another war later on as the structural problems were still there?

I don't see why. The SPD was gaining seats before the war, and no, Hurgan, there were no plans for Evil Germanic Ethnic Cleansing. I think it isn't too far our to say that the Germans will undergo a democratising process.

The Ottomans would probably stay intact.

AH would either reform or split up (mostly) peacefully.

[Susano]

I don't see why. The SPD was gaining seats before the war, and no, Hurgan, there were no plans for Evil Germanic Ethnic Cleansing. I think it isn't too far our to say that the Germans will undergo a democratising process.
Im sorry, but I hav eto disagree about the former count. That is, yes, the SPD was constantly gaining seats, but a "quick victorious" war exactly as envisioned by the reactionaries and militarists WILL vindicate said reactionaries and militarists. This might have actually quite bad consequences... unless Germany gets victory disease and throws itself from one military adventure to the next, that could create dissastisfaction...

AH would either reform or split up (mostly) peacefully.
If AH is victorious and the army stays intact, so will most likely AH. And with Charles now Emperor there most likely will also be no military actions against Huingary, as was vaguely envisioned by Francis Ferdinand.

of course, wether this situation is ripe for another war - I do not know. Possible, maybe. It seems to me the situation would be much like after the Franco-german War of 1870/71: Just not bad enough to ram through the idea of war as a bad thing, and on the winners side the idea of the "short victorious war" becomes further entrenched socially... and no side is weakened enough to make war impossible... so, perhaps...

[Gosing]

Im sorry, but I hav eto disagree about the former count. That is, yes, the SPD was constantly gaining seats, but a "quick victorious" war exactly as envisioned by the reactionaries and militarists WILL vindicate said reactionaries and militarists. This might have actually quite bad consequences... unless Germany gets victory disease and throws itself from one military adventure to the next, that could create dissastisfaction...

Woot, I finally get to disagree with Susano!:D

The Militarists will get a boost, certainly, but I just don't think another Great European War is in the making, maybe not ever. German militarism will probably come in the form of expeditions, not wars (Russia, maybe?), which is untenable. I think the Miliarists will be thrown out before the 20s are done.

of course, wether this situation is ripe for another war - I do not know. Possible, maybe. It seems to me the situation would be much like after the Franco-german War of 1870/71: Just not bad enough to ram through the idea of war as a bad thing, and on the winners side the idea of the "short victorious war" becomes further entrenched socially... and no side is weakened enough to make war impossible... so, perhaps...

Well, France has been spanked quickly twice in a row, once alone and once with friends. I doubt the British will want to get involved, and he Russians will be busy.

[jkay]

Fronts tended to be static between industrialized nations from the American Civil War to the invention of the tank, late in the War. It was that way because weapon firing had gotten fast enough that charges on fortified positions would mostly be mowed down before they could get there. It only took half a night of digging to get enough fortification, and the payoff was worth it, er, in spades.

So, if, say, you delayed the war 'til after the tank?

The UK invented tank doctrine, BTW, and the French quickly joined them, and the Americans a little more slowly. The Germans were far behind.

[Gridley]

Fronts tended to be static between industrialized nations from the American Civil War to the invention of the tank, late in the War. It was that way because weapon firing had gotten fast enough that charges on fortified positions would mostly be mowed down before they could get there. It only took half a night of digging to get enough fortification, and the payoff was worth it, er, in spades.


Have to disagree in this particular case; any of three IDPs could see Germany winning before the static warfare settled in.
1. They move a little faster (hard to justify, IMO) and manage to take Paris before the Battle of the Marne. OTL they came within 50 miles IIRC. It isn't too hard to imagine a cease-fire and negotiation at that point.
2. The Germans pull off a victory at the Battle of the Marne. OTL they came close; probably not very hard to change this one. If they win the Marne they can fairly believably take Paris or cut off the French Army and force it to surrender. Again, short war.
3. The Germans manage to win the "Race to the Sea." IIRC OTL that wasn't likely, but you could imagine them pulling off a victory in one of the intermediate battles of that campaign, or perhaps finishing off the Belgians sooner. This might not actually result in a victory, just a different arrangement of the trench lines, but I think you could make a plausible case.

[acgoldis]

I'd been thinking along the lines of them winning the Race to the Sea myself. But any means would suffice.

[Mikestone8]

How decisively could they win it?

Any chance they could take Le Havre, and have a Western Front running up the Seine to a point somewhere north of Paris? Or one hitting the Channel near Dieppe?

What occurred to me is that if they can get troops north and west of Paris, and keep them there any length of time (they'd have to pull back sometime) they can seriously disrupt French railway communications, which mostly run through the capital, so that any forces switched from the Lorraine border will have to take a more circuitous route, so that the final Western Front is quite a bit more favourable to the Germans. I just wondered how favourable it could get.

[Sachyriel]

The answer to this thread's topic, to make the front fluid is make every battle The Battle of Messines. Make every nation fund one giant campaign like that and the war will have so many breakthroughs that

Then the front lines that were once stalemated will be... up in the air. :cool:
yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaah:cool:

[wiking]

Have to disagree in this particular case; any of three IDPs could see Germany winning before the static warfare settled in.
1. They move a little faster (hard to justify, IMO) and manage to take Paris before the Battle of the Marne. OTL they came within 50 miles IIRC. It isn't too hard to imagine a cease-fire and negotiation at that point.
2. The Germans pull off a victory at the Battle of the Marne. OTL they came close; probably not very hard to change this one. If they win the Marne they can fairly believably take Paris or cut off the French Army and force it to surrender. Again, short war.
3. The Germans manage to win the "Race to the Sea." IIRC OTL that wasn't likely, but you could imagine them pulling off a victory in one of the intermediate battles of that campaign, or perhaps finishing off the Belgians sooner. This might not actually result in a victory, just a different arrangement of the trench lines, but I think you could make a plausible case.

The Germans could not take Paris without siege because it was a fortified city. There is no way to end the war without destroying the French field armies. The French 5th army needs to be fixed and destroyed early in the war and the BEF must not be allowed to escape. The best POD that I can think of would be allowing Kluck to swing out before Mons, which he wanted to, but Below denied, which means he will hit the British right in the flank and cut them off when the BEF digs in at Mons to cover the 5th army's flank. The British then have next to no way to contribute for several months unless they have the will to send III and IV corps to the Marne, which I doubt they will for political reasons.

That means the French are now without the ability to stand and fight, because the German 1st army can now advanced unopposed. Instead of going after the French 5th army, which won't stand and fight at Guise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_St._Quentin_(1914)
If they go, they will be destroyed. So instead of a fighting withdrawal, it will be a full flight to the Marne with consequences to the fighting on the Meuse.
Beyond that von Kluck can go after the forming 6th army, scattering it. Then there will be no Miracle of the Marne, despite the French slight numerical advantage. The Germans will be forced to pause to catch their breaths/let supply lines catch up, meaning they will be right outside Paris and dug in, while the French will either have to attack trench lines or let the Germans get stronger and bring up siege guns to hit Paris. Neither are great options, but the second alternative is worse.

This also gives von Strantz time to finish off Tryon, which means Verdun is cut off and the French 3rd army has to retreat or be crushed. The French line pulls back here leaving Verdun under siege. The French fail to drive the Germans back on the Marne, meaning the line stops there. The British reform and send a new BEF in September-October, but by then the Germans are likely shelling Paris, ready to burn it down and the French may well ask for terms. There is no guarantee that they will, but it is the best chance to get them there.

As to a quick German victory reinforcing Conservatives in Germany, any gains are likely to be small, but will result in losses in the hundreds of thousands. Will it be worth it? I think in the short term it will raise nationalist fervor, but in the medium to long term will only delay the inevitable Socialism demands for political reform/equality.

[Valdemar II]

Im sorry, but I hav eto disagree about the former count. That is, yes, the SPD was constantly gaining seats, but a "quick victorious" war exactly as envisioned by the reactionaries and militarists WILL vindicate said reactionaries and militarists. This might have actually quite bad consequences... unless Germany gets victory disease and throws itself from one military adventure to the next, that could create dissastisfaction...


If AH is victorious and the army stays intact, so will most likely AH. And with Charles now Emperor there most likely will also be no military actions against Huingary, as was vaguely envisioned by Francis Ferdinand.

of course, wether this situation is ripe for another war - I do not know. Possible, maybe. It seems to me the situation would be much like after the Franco-german War of 1870/71: Just not bad enough to ram through the idea of war as a bad thing, and on the winners side the idea of the "short victorious war" becomes further entrenched socially... and no side is weakened enough to make war impossible... so, perhaps...

No I think there are one distinct difference, if Germany win even (or especially) if the peace treaty isn't too humiliating for France. France will have lost two wars in fifty years, in many way this will for France be somewhat healthy, because if they recognise that Germany are structural stronger and they can't be weaken back to France niveau. France policies will turn toward keeping status quo, rather try becoming Number One again.
While Germany will likely suffer from somekind of victory diesease the next few years, fundamental the internal structures in German society which made SPD the up and coming party hasn't changed, and SPDs support of the war, would do a lot to legitise them among the old elite.

[Mikestone8]

If they win the Marne they can fairly believably take Paris

"Take Paris" is a recipe for horror.

Gallieni had been ordered to defend the city á outrance, ie street by street. We could be talking about an early Stalingrad here, and it would certainly take a long time and tie up a large part of the German Army - enough to prevent them defeating Joffre?

Seems to me the city weould have to be left until after the main French armies were more or less totally defeated, so that the Germans could then sit down and starve it out. They can't beat the French by taking Paris, it would have to be the other way round.

[Mikestone8]

As to a quick German victory reinforcing Conservatives in Germany, any gains are likely to be small, but will result in losses in the hundreds of thousands. Will it be worth it?


Doesn't that just mean that the Germans couldn't settle for only small gains? They would have to set their demands hight to make the war seem worthwhile.

[wiking]

Doesn't that just mean that the Germans couldn't settle for only small gains? They would have to set their demands hight to make the war seem worthwhile.

They didn't develop high demands until later. For the moment it was all about propping up AH and teaching a lesson to the French; once that object is achieved early on annexations are secondary to the peace makers.

The public perception and the leadership's are very different when it comes to acceptable cost. The SPD base may be upset while the conservatives don't care. There won't be unrest over the peace, but rather voters expressing their opinion with their vote. Not only that, but veterans may demand increased franchise or rights for doing their service. Thanks of a grateful nation and all. Remember too that the SPD voted for war credits, so they will be part of the 'winning team' as it were.

Regardless, the change in French and European perceptions about the new balance of power will keep the peace in the future.

[jkay]

The problem with all those interesting ideas are that, well, none of those would win the war immediately, and the French can still easily beat the Germans when they attack - yes, even without the comparatively small BEF. Remember, no lines are yielding fast outside the planners' imaginations....

As I said, it's too early for offensives to go anywhere, and anyway the Entente outinvented the Central Powers. You prolly hafta delay WWI 'til tanks.

[Gridley]

As I said, it's too early for offensives to go anywhere, and anyway the Entente outinvented the Central Powers. You prolly hafta delay WWI 'til tanks.

Funny, I seem to recall the German offensive moving from the Belgian-German border to 50 miles from Paris.

[Mikestone8]

They didn't develop high demands until later. For the moment it was all about propping up AH and teaching a lesson to the French; once that object is achieved early on annexations are secondary to the peace makers.


What counts as "high demands"? Bethmann-Hollweg announced the "September Programme" on 9 September 1914 (ie well before any French surrender was in sight) and that looks pretty ambitious to me.

They will also have to keep at least the northern part of France under military occupation until they can make peace with Britain, which is probably still quite a long way off. I suspect most Frenchmen will take that as a humiliation no matter how polite the occupiers are.

[rast]

The Germans expected to negotiate a peace settlement, not to dictate one (at least until III. OHL took over); so, the 'Septemberprogramm' is a basis for bargaining (You have to demand much in order to get anything).

And looking at the Entente war aims, it was pretty modest anyway.

[Mikestone8]

The Germans expected to negotiate a peace settlement, not to dictate one (at least until III. OHL took over); so, the 'Septemberprogramm' is a basis for bargaining (You have to demand much in order to get anything).

And looking at the Entente war aims, it was pretty modest anyway.


Trouble is, how does a "modest" peace treaty work for Germany?

Russia will go on industrialising, and get steadily stronger. Even if she loses, say, Poland and Lithuania to the Germans, it won't noticeably affect her strength twenty years hence. That will still be lot greater than in 1914. So she fights a war of revenge (which France joins in, of course) and Germany gets squashed.

The way I see it, Germany has boxed herself into a corner. Having got herself into war, she has to not just win it, but win big enough that her enemies won't be a military threat in the foreseeable future. A moderate peace (even moderately in her favour) just won't give her security. She's got herself into a mess where it's a case of "all or nothing". She can't compromise .

[Monty Burns]

Russia will go on industrialising, and get steadily stronger. Even if she loses, say, Poland and Lithuania to the Germans, it won't noticeably affect her strength twenty years hence. That will still be lot greater than in 1914. So she fights a war of revenge (which France joins in, of course) and Germany gets squashed.

Whereas it's true that Lithuania and Poland wouldn't do much of a difference for German power, German itself is industrializing further as well. Extrapolating German development in teh same way you do for Russia implies a German population which grows about 20% and German industry growing above that. Note also that Germany at the time was the major supplier of "high tech", which would likely continue. Similar developments can be expected in sciences as well.

Finally, yet most important, Germany was on its way to more democracy. Even if this gets a setback by a quick and successful war, the Germans will still learn their lessons. There will be more non-noble officers in teh military. The three-class voting system in Prussia was about to end anyway. Alsace-Lorraine will get more autonomy. The SPD showed "patriotism". As these developments reduce the influence of the old elites, a new war becomes less likely, whereas Germany gaining more allies becomes more likely.

[Grey Wolf]

An interesting view of Russian foreign policy is that it switches between East and West as it is defeated, whether diplomatically or militarily, on one front. Thus, after a defeat in the West, Russia is far more likely IMHO to look for opportunities to grow in China, to back central rule in China and seek to reassert its inflluence there

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[wiking]

A Russian loss helps speed along the Russian revolution. While it is important for Germany to 'win big', a long war is not in her favor either. Humiliating the Russians should be enough to get them to slide over the edge into revolution and dissatisfaction with the Tzar. Said revolution will set Russia back considerably. The war will increase her debt, both for expenditures and indemnity, which will all set back Russian development. France won't be able to invest in Russia after the war and Britain IIRC wasn't interested in investing in Russia prewar.

The other question is what Russia will except as a peace deal with France out of the war. Many seem to assume that Russia will fold immediately after France exits the war, but if German demands are not acceptable, the war could go on as Russia waits for Britain to contribute and Germany and Austria-Hungary to tire and negotiate peace. The Russian government realizes what a loss means; they understand that revolution was around the corner before the war increased patriotism and dampened dissatisfaction. By admitting defeat so early in the war Russia might well blame the Tzar for folding so soon, especially if that means losing Poland, Lithuania, and parts of Ukraine while also paying an indemnity.

[Devolved]

As many have already stated a fluid World War One would have to be a short one.

The tragedy of World War One (apart from happening at all) was that it came at the time when defensive firepower had the ascendancy over the attack.

Machine Guns were coming into their own and inflicting heavy casualties on the traditional frontal mass attack. Brave soldiers, however well trained, needed to cover the ground to get to the machine gunners. If the machine gunners found a half decent position and had the additional protection of riflemen and artillery then they were just too diificult to dislodge without suffering huge losses.

As for the war being relatively bloodless then compared to OTL this would be true but to the people at the end of 1914 the body count would have still looked horrendous and it would have had a psychological impact.

France suffered huge losses in The Battle of the Frontiers. The Germans would also be reflecting on many dead.

By the way I think the only way to get a short war would be through a German victory.

The Entente made more mistakes than the Germans. Too many really. You would need to change too many things such as a more competent Russian performance at Tannenberg (by that I mean a victory) and the French not throwing away so many men on the frontier and holding some troops back to hit the Germans with a heavy counter punch when they're supplies become extended.

If you really want to go wild on an Entente victory you do the Churchillian stuff such as a landing on the Pommeranian coast with the Royal Navy helping to land a large Russian force that marches on Berlin.

Not happening.

Germany could have won on the Marne if they hadn't panicked when the BEF marched in to the gap in their lines.

Churchill wrote that later in the war this kind of thrust wouldn't have worried anyone and the attacking force would have ended up in an over stretched salient that could have been easily cut off and destroyed. But in 1914 armies marching into gaps were scary and the Germans retreated in response to text book orthodoxy.

So you could still get a victory on the Marne and the BEF destroyed!!

Maybe a war winner.

Best

Regards.

[Mikestone8]

Germany could have won on the Marne if they hadn't panicked when the BEF marched in to the gap in their lines.

Agreed, with the reservation that winning on the Marne doesn't necessarily end the war.

The French are going to have to make a stand somewhere, and the line from Paris to the Lorraine border is about as good as they'll find anywhere. The only way the Germans can outflank it is by sending an army right round west of Paris (in addition to one facing Paris to keep Gallieni occupied) and as far as I can see they just don't have the troops for that. For my money, the best they can hope for (and this may well be optimistic) is a line roughly similar to that of the BotM, then skirting Paris to the north, and thereafter following the Seine to the Channel. After that things settle down into stalemate - though a stalemate much more favourable to the Germnas.

Churchill wrote that later in the war this kind of thrust wouldn't have worried anyone and the attacking force would have ended up in an over stretched salient that could have been easily cut off and destroyed. But in 1914 armies marching into gaps were scary and the Germans retreated in response to text book orthodoxy.

So you could still get a victory on the Marne and the BEF destroyed!!


Theoretically, but Sir John French had already had a couple of bloody noses at Mons and Le Cateau, hence his caution. He moved slowly because he feared precisely the kind of trap you suggest. After his previous experience, this inviting gap smelt too much of "Will you come into my parlour?" The first hint of such a thing and he'd have retreated post haste.

[NothingNow]

The way I see it, Germany has boxed herself into a corner. Having got herself into war, she has to not just win it, but win big enough that her enemies won't be a military threat in the foreseeable future. A moderate peace (even moderately in her favour) just won't give her security. She's got herself into a mess where it's a case of "all or nothing". She can't compromise .

No. If she can settle things with Russia, bitch-slap France in to reality, and mend things with Britain (possibly by retiring or selling off some of the HSF), she'll be in a much better position than she was before the war. The First two are fairly easy, the Latter however might be an issue because of the "Incidents" in Belgium, which could possibly be pawned off as the fault of Junior Officers and Enlisted men who grew up hearing stories about French Partisans on their Father's and Grandfather's Knees, and Horribly over reacted to perfectly innocent things (Which might not be that far from the Truth actually.)

[Mikestone8]

No. If she can settle things with Russia, bitch-slap France in to reality, and mend things with Britain (possibly by retiring or selling off some of the HSF), she'll be in a much better position than she was before the war. The First two are fairly easy, the Latter however might be an issue because of the "Incidents" in Belgium,


What does "settle things with Russia" mean?

The Tsar has proclaimed to huge crowds that he'll never make peace while there's a single enemy on Russian soil. If he has to turn round and eat his words only months later, the loss of prestige will finish him. His only choice is to win or to go down fightiing, same as it was for Alexander I in 1812.

As for France, the "bitch slap" is one that leaves Paris a heap of rubble, like Leningrad or Stalingrad in a later war, and half of France under German occupation until such time as they can get a peace with Britain. They won't be reconciled any time soon. It might be different if the war was lost in 1917 or 1918, when the heroic mood has gone sour, but in 1914 it can still be blamed on some unsuccessful general or disloyal ally (guess who) and it will be "if only" this that or the other.

The stuff about retiring or selling off the HSF is pure ASB. They wouldn't agree to that even in peacetime, so the chance of them agreeing to it after a victorious war is nil.

[Devolved]

Agreed, with the reservation that winning on the Marne doesn'tr necessarily end the war..

True enough. It would then come down to how the French view the future. Do they still think they can win in a reasonable period of time.

In the aftermath of the Marne many of the French seemed to think victory could be achieved fairly soon. They thought the Germans would be demoralized and the Russians were still in East Prussia with dreams of early victory.

This encouraged them to go on the offensive at the Aisne and they were willing to take casualties. Even after the defeat of the Russians and the stalemate by December the French still looked forward to a few more pushes to bring them victory. So they endured!

Would they feel like that after a defeat on the Marne, followed soon after by the news of the destruction of the Russian armies in East Prussia?

Would they think that the strategic position had become hopeless and that winning would be too much of an uphill struggle to even contemplate?

Also what if the BEF had got mauled too? Would the British (at so early a stage) commit to raising a whole new army for a long war.

Kitchener knew it would be a long war but the Britsh people did not. Would not a defeat on the Marne jolt the British people into drawing back from the abyss?

So you can still get a short war if the French and British think that the task will be too great. If they don't think that then you still have a long war.