Schlieffen in reverse

WI Germany had decided on an defensive strategy in the West and to try to take a LOT of Russian territory before the Czarist empire could mobilize.

Was there ANY element in the French military that would have contemplated violating Belgium territory (or could France have persauaded Belgium to allow free passage?)


If Britain acted on the basis that it did in OTL it would declare war on France. I am fairly sure this would not happen but....

Derek Jackson said:

WI Germany had decided on an defensive strategy in the West and to try to take a LOT of Russian territory before the Czarist empire could mobilize.

Was there ANY element in the French military that would have contemplated violating Belgium territory (or could France have persauaded Belgium to allow free passage?)


If Britain acted on the basis that it did in OTL it would declare war on France. I am fairly sure this would not happen but....

Click to expand...

To answer your questions, no, france wouldnt have invaded belgium, they did want to take the offensive, but their plans limited it to Alsace-Lorraine first. They had zero strategic advantages to DoW Belgium. The UK would not have gotten involved right away in the war you describe either.

As for invading Russia, though, while it would have worked after awhile, they couldnt have "grabbed alot before Russia mobilized". Russia was ready, and they mobilized very fast in OTL. They just had piss poor material, organization, leadership and morale, which is another thing entirely. In other words, Germany could have defended itself in the West, but would have needed at least a couple years to roll over russia. Meanwhile, France would be a slightly more powerful foe, but Germany might be able to keep the UK out of the war meanwhile.

The strategy is winning only so far as Germany is able to knock out Russia before the UK throws its weight in. Alot of people in England wont want to wait for that to happen, but alot wont be ready to go to war without the rape of Belgium.

Its a good scenario really. "Shades of Grey" begins wonderfully on these premises.

Valamyr said:

Its a good scenario really. "Shades of Grey" begins wonderfully on these premises.

Click to expand...

I remember someone mentioned that before - is it a book or a website ? Where can I indulge ?

Grey Wolf

Motke (the Elder) proposed that Germany stays on defensive on the west and offensive in the east. Schliffen reversed this because he believed that in situation at that time long, exhaustive wars are impossible and Germany has to win quicklly. In the west this was possible as there isn't room for french army to withdraw and would be sorounded & destroyed. In the east Russians could withdraw and German punches would fall into empty space. After quick victory in the west all available forces were to be transfered east to achieve dcisive victory there as well.

To change german posture you have to remove Schlieffen. Which was never a problem for althist writers.

Moral high ground erodes

Without Germany in Belgium, the propaganda front in the USA is not as strong for the Entente. Britain did a good job of using that to help portray Germany as the bad guys.
In addition, without the Royal Navy, I doubt that anyone could interdict American ships heading both for Germany and neutral nations. If they tried, perhaps Wilson would have been a bit more energetic about defending American rights since the British weren't involved at first.
American trade with Germany, either directly or through neutral nations, leads to Germany being more reluctant to institue unrestricted submarine warfare, since the drying up of American trade would result,
If Britian comes in a year or so later, and starts its historical practices after the profits are rolling in, would the American business community put so much pressure on Wilson that he had to protect American neutrality, or couldhe still get away with his pro-British bias? No invasion of Belgium and no USW takes away a lot of moral high ground that Britian used.

Actually there has been recent research into the "Schlieffen Plan" and basically concludes that "The Plan" is an extensive hoax cooked up by former members of the German General Staff to explain why their offensive against France failed. It was also an attack against Moltke the Younger, who many felt had not done quite a sterling job as chief of staff.

Schlieffen did propose the great advance through the Low Countries and Northern France, but it was entirely as a hypothetical exercise done more to justify expansion of the German Army to the Government. He did quite extensive wargaming with various war plans, but it appears that he never wargamed this particular plan. The last few exercises he held before his retirement were strictly defensive war plans. Schlieffen appears to have settled on delivering the knockout blow first to Russia while repulsing French attacks.

The idea of 'the Schlieffen Plan' didn't make its appearance in any written form until late in the Great War and wasn't known by the West until the late 1920s or 30s.

Regarding France and Belgium, the Belgians were far more afraid of potential invasion from France than from Germany in the early 20th century. The British are going to stand by their French allies since they haven't any other choice. If the Franco-German front had stalled, I think the French and British would have pressured the Belgians into letting them pass through.

History Today in 2002 had an article about the myth of the Schlieffen Plan. I recommend taking a look at Terence Zuber's Inventing the Schlieffen plan : German war planning, 1871-1914, Oxford University Press 2002.

Suppose Belgium stands firm...

Suppose David S Poepoe's scenario comes to pass--the Anglo-France alliance pressures Belgium to let them in, and Belgium responds with the historical, "Belgium is a country, not a road!" statement, and deploys its army to the Belgian--French frontier, and digs in much as both sides are dug in across Europe.
Would the Entente invade, or give up on that route? What pressure could they apply that would force Belgium to comply?
I bet the US would happily sell Belgium all it needs to protect its neutrality--and Germany could supply the Belgians with some machine guns and some advise on their use. They probably would, too, to keep the Entente out.

Grey Wolf said:

I remember someone mentioned that before - is it a book or a website ? Where can I indulge ?

Grey Wolf

Click to expand...

http://www.geocities.com/drammos/Shades_of_gray1.html

Sadly, it was never completed.

I doubt the US will do anything, its not bound to uphold Belgium's neutrality. The state of things in August 1914 are so fluid and happening so fast one doesn't really know what is happening. I suspect that the Entente will make the same offers than the German's did when they first approached the Belgians.

I wrote an assignment on the Schlieffen plan in my 1st yr Modern European Hist course, and got 100/100 for it (not meaning to boast at all). I fully hold with you other guys who state Britain's influence at the outbreak of WWI wouldn't have been as extensive as OTL Aug 1914 had Belgium not been invaded.

Other possible Schlieffen plan PODs:
WI von Moltke the younger hadn't weakened the right wing of the German envelopment by detaching 2 corps (from von Kluck's 1st Army, IIRC) to the Russian front after von Prittwitz panicked ?

WI the French had totally bloodied themselves in their costly Alsace-Lorraine offensives ?

WI the BEF hadn't held back the Germans at Mons ?

WI von Motlke hadn't broken under the starin of campaigning and had to delegate his command role (disastrously, of course) to his aide ?

WI the Germans had actually managed to take Paris on schedule ? Say, if Gen Gallieni hadn't been in charge of the defence of Paris and dispatched French soldiers on city taxicabs to the frontline ? Would France have contined the fight had Paris been lost ?