Fall of France during WWI?

[PoeFacedKilla]

Is it possible, no matter what PoD really, to have a similar fall of france during the first world war as it was in the second?

I know it would be alot harder with trench warfare, but does that make it impossible?

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by PoeFacedKilla

Is it possible, no matter what PoD really, to have a similar fall of france during the first world war as it was in the second?

I know it would be alot harder with trench warfare, but does that make it impossible?

Sure. It might takes a couple of POD for it to be that fast, but yes. Does the UK have to be in the war? A true neutral UK with no BEF and Italy coming in the war for the CP goes a long way to what you want to happen.

Now with with the same countries in the war on the same dates, it would be hard to do, but not impossible. Have the French Generals make the same level of dumb mistakes in WW1 as WW2, and I could see it happen. Basically need the French to do something like send all the forces to A-L and ignore Belgium until it is too late, and have a couple of armies surrender to the Germans. Once the French lose a couple of Armies, they will have a hard time stopping the Germans before the outskirts of Paris.

[SergeantHeretic]

All the Germans have to do is enact and then stick to the Von Slieffen plan as written during the first days and weeks of the war.

If they due that the Imperial Germans will capture Paris in a matter of weeks rendering French ressistance moot.

[Pangur]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

All the Germans have to do is enact and then stick to the Von Slieffen plan as written during the first days and weeks of the war.

If they due that the Imperial Germans will capture Paris in a matter of weeks rendering French ressistance moot.

This might be a stupid question however just because the capital is taken why does that mean you trow in the towel? Heck most of France would still be free Me , I would say keep fighting

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Pangur

This might be a stupid question however just because the capital is taken why does that mean you trow in the towel? Heck most of France would still be free Me , I would say keep fighting

That is a post World War Two mindset, one that would not exist in 1914.

[Xgentis]

Again with the french surrender cliché borring...

[ccdsah]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

That is a post World War Two mindset, one that would not exist in 1914.

Romania didn't surrender in WW1 once Bucharest was occupied it continued fighting in 1917 in Moldova; the armistice was signed in 918 but was never ratified by the Parliament or the King

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Pangur

This might be a stupid question however just because the capital is taken why does that mean you trow in the towel? Heck most of France would still be free Me , I would say keep fighting

1) 25% of the France's population is Paris.

2) By the time you get there, you also have taken the main industrial zone.

3) Rail network hub is Paris.


So if 40 million Frenchmen with a strong industrial base can't stop Germany, how does 25 million Frenchmen with no industrial base stop Germany?

Also, since all the French reserves will be used before Paris falls, the French army has been gutted by this time frame.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

1) 25% of the France's population is Paris.

2) By the time you get there, you also have taken the main industrial zone.

3) Rail network hub is Paris.


So if 40 million Frenchmen with a strong industrial base can't stop Germany, how doe 25 million Frenchmen with no industrial base stop Germany?

Also, since all the French reserves will be used before Paris falls, the French army has been gutted by this time frame.

Uhhh yeah, what he said.

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by Pangur

This might be a stupid question however just because the capital is taken why does that mean you trow in the towel? Heck most of France would still be free Me , I would say keep fighting

Trouble is that in WW1 everybody was heavily dependent on railways - and those of Northern France were virtually all "radial" from Paris. If the capital goes, French communications and supply lines are largely paralysed.

To lose Paris is, in effect, to lose the entire northern half of France, including the vast bulk of French industry, and probably also the fortress line from Verdun to Belfort, so that the German logistical position is much improved.

In theory at least, France could fight on for a while in the south, but even if they do, I can't see it doing any more than prolong the agony a few months.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

All the Germans have to do is enact and then stick to the Von Slieffen plan as written during the first days and weeks of the war.

If they due that the Imperial Germans will capture Paris in a matter of weeks rendering French ressistance moot.

Ah yes, the Schlieffen Plan... that never existed as an operational doctrine.



Short of ASBs intervening, its not going to happen. Total war, industrialized, with mass conscription... there's no way the Germans have the time, the supplies, the firepower or manpower to take Paris and defeat France in a knock-out blow. Not in 1914.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Ah yes, the Schlieffen Plan... that never existed as an operational doctrine.



Short of ASBs intervening, its not going to happen. Total war, industrialized, with mass conscription... there's no way the Germans have the time, the supplies, the firepower or manpower to take Paris and defeat France in a knock-out blow. Not in 1914.

See how much I don't know. Ah well that's what happens when I let a frikken cable channel tell me what's what.

[rast]

In 1914, Général Gallieni, the military governor of Paris, was left alone with four and a half divisions of territorials and one brigade of naval infantry - in face of von Kluck's 1st German Army approaching from the north. - If 1st Army hadn't changed direction to the south-east, Paris would have fallen rather quickly (Maunoury's 6th French Army wasn't there yet, but had already received the 61st and 62nd Reserve Divisions, originally intended as garrison for Paris).

So, the French military leadership was quite ready to abandon Paris - and continue fighting. The civil government had already been evacuated to Bordeaux.

For a very centralised country like France the loss of the capital, which also was the central rail hub, would have had grave consequences; but I wouldn't have caused them to sue for peace immediately. Only the realisation that the Russian 'steamroller' wouldn't come to the rescue - and that the British blockade didn't force the Germans to sue for peace within four months (as the French expected at the time) could eventually - in 1915 - have led to a new appraisal of the situation.

[Meadow]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Ah yes, the Schlieffen Plan... that never existed as an operational doctrine.



Short of ASBs intervening, its not going to happen. Total war, industrialized, with mass conscription... there's no way the Germans have the time, the supplies, the firepower or manpower to take Paris and defeat France in a knock-out blow. Not in 1914.

I don't know - Kluck's Turn, etc - avoiding the battle of the Marne MIGHT just tip things against France enough for them to launch a poor defence of Paris and thus lose it.

If France does fall, that's the end of the war in the West. The idea of Britain fighting on and landing there eventually was unheard of until technology and the stakes had advanced to the point of WWII.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by Meadow

I don't know - Kluck's Turn, etc - avoiding the battle of the Marne MIGHT just tip things against France enough for them to launch a poor defence of Paris and thus lose it.

If France does fall, that's the end of the war in the West. The idea of Britain fighting on and landing there eventually was unheard of until technology and the stakes had advanced to the point of WWII.

That's the problem though - the Schlieffen "Plan" was only a long laundry list of German imperial desires in a two-front war, and even after von Moltke largely created an operational doctrine from von Schlieffen's war-gaming/political plot it was still poorly structured, and most of the German generals in early 1914 knew it. Even if Kluck doesn't disregard the 'plan,' as it was, there's still a lot of room for error, ignorance, or poor judgement on the German's part, or just plain luck, better skill, or simple statistics for France's part. A successful Schlieffen is akin to a successful Sealion.

[iddt3]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

All the Germans have to do is enact and then stick to the Von Slieffen plan as written during the first days and weeks of the war.

If they due that the Imperial Germans will capture Paris in a matter of weeks rendering French ressistance moot.

You mean the utterly logistically impossible plan that would have required the entire German army to be literally Aryan supermen? The German's had already about hit the end of their rope when they were stopped at the Marne, if they hadn't been they would have been jerked up, hard by their massively over extended logistics. Von Moltke's alterations were generally improvements, moving the troops to Alsace-Lorraine for example was probably a good plan because the German front was already overcrowded, especially transportation wise, and hitting the Netherlands would have made the long term German supply situation worse and brought in the Dutch army and Navy (Neither of which were unsubstantial IIRC).

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by iddt3

You mean the utterly logistically impossible plan that would have required the entire German army to be literally Aryan supermen? The German's had already about hit the end of their rope when they were stopped at the Marne, if they hadn't been they would have been jerked up, hard by their massively over extended logistics. Von Moltke's alterations were generally improvements, moving the troops to Alsace-Lorraine for example was probably a good plan because the German front was already overcrowded, especially transportation wise, and hitting the Netherlands would have made the long term German supply situation worse and brought in the Dutch army and Navy (Neither of which were unsubstantial IIRC).

I have already had my talking to about this one, thank you, I don't need another one. I admitted I was wrong and ate my serving of crow about it, I don't need second helpings.

[Reichenfaust]

I agree with rast's line of thinking.

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by iddt3

You mean the utterly logistically impossible plan that would have required the entire German army to be literally Aryan supermen?

Not quite that bad. All they needed was to be a bit luckier in the Battles of the Frontiers.

Had Bulow (or Moltke) allowed Kluck to continue in his original direction, he would have crossed the French border quite a bit further west, so that instead of being hit head on (and having the Mons-Conde canal as a defensive position) the BEF is flanked and pushed back eastward, which puts it directly across Lanrezac's line of retreat. From what I can gather, liaison between the two armies varied between poor and nonexistent, so quite likely they don't learn each other's situation till it's too late.

In this scenario, the Germans have a chance (not a certainty of course, there's always many a slip) of getting a "Tannenberg" in the west, more or less simultaneously with the one in East Prussia. The French line is now hanging in midair somewhere near Sedan, at a high risk either of encirclement or at least of being driven back sourthward, uncovering Paris.

One thought. Would this mean that Hindenburg, and through him Ludendorff, don't loom as large as OTL? The western "Tannenberg" might well overshadow the eatern one.

[SergeantHeretic]

Clearly regarding Germany's offensive into France i nthe opening of the war, Opinions vary.