Germans reach Paris in the begining of WW1.

[Saladan]

what if during the opening stages of the first world war, the Germans actually get close enough to Paris to actually be able to siege it. How likely could the take it, and if they actually manage to occupy Paris does this end the war in the west?

[Kaiser Kris]

Originally Posted by Saladan

what if during the opening stages of the first world war, the Germans actually get close enough to Paris to actually be able to siege it. How likely could the take it, and if they actually manage to occupy Paris does this end the war in the west?

It all depends on the condition of the German armies when they reach Paris- something would have had to have gone significantly better than OTL. Personally, I'm skeptical about the whole thing- it seems that the Schlieffen Plan was a strategy that needed technology that didn't exist to REALLY work.

If they did manage to take and hold Paris, it would be a major blow to France, but I would think that the condition of Calais and the little scrap of Belgium that OTL didn't fall into German hands would actually be more critical to the war effort. Conceivably, if the Germans held Paris, it's possible they might be able to get some sort of moderate negotiated peace. Peace would have to look at least marginally acceptable to the Allies, I would think. Perhaps Russia would lose Poland and Germany would gain some colonies (the Congo, rights over the Portuguese colonies?) and some sort of beneficial agreement, re, the creation of a Mitteleuropa.

That's pretty optimistic for the Germans, though. Otherwise, it could just make an Allied victory somewhat harder.

[NHBL]

In the early days of the war, the US government wasn't really involved in any loans to the Entente. And if Paris fall, I suspect that neutral bankers would be less willing (or charge higher interest) to loan money to the Entente nations. Likely a financial problem...

Italy would be less confident in an Entente victory, and might well stay neutral longer. That leaves fewer Austrian troops tied up on that frontier...though some would be necessary. But they aren't in combat, so loosing fewer people and using fewer resources.

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by Saladan

what if during the opening stages of the first world war, the Germans actually get close enough to Paris to actually be able to siege it. How likely could the take it, and if they actually manage to occupy Paris does this end the war in the west?

Well the Germans weren't actually trying to besiege Paris. The whole idea behind the Schlieffen Plan was to attempt to inflict a quick defeat on the French army and end the war in the west so that Germany's army could then be sent east before the Russians were able to fully mobilize their forces and get them to the front. Von Schlieffen specifically wanted to avoid a siege of Paris because the siege of Paris in the Franco-Prussian War had lasted for months. The Plan intended to trap and defeat the French army around Paris, and thereby force a French surrender, but wasn't actually trying to besiege the city itself.

Edit: I guess we can still explore a fall of Paris without a siege though

If say the Germans were successful, and they were able to destroy the French army and then enter Paris, then that may very well have led to their victory. After that the French would likely realize that there was little chance of them still winning in the west with their army defeated and captured, and they might then attempt to negotiate the best settlement they could get. With the land war in the west over the British might still be able to defeat Germany on the sea and take its colonies, but Russia would be in a very dire situation if Germany was then able to send most of its land forces east, and so Russia might also have little choice but to seek a settlement to a now unwinnable war. So the fall of Paris could lead to an early victory for the central powers. Such an early end to the war might prevent many of the lesser countries from entering into the war at all.

[Kaiser Kris]

Originally Posted by Waldo

If say the Germans were successful, and they were able to destroy the French army and then enter Paris, then that may very well have led to their victory. After that the French would likely realize that there was little chance of them still winning in the west with their army defeated and captured, and they might then attempt to negotiate the best settlement they could get. With the land war in the west over the British might still be able to defeat Germany on the sea and take its colonies, but Russia would be in a very dire situation if Germany was then able to send most of its land forces east, and so Russia might also have little choice but to seek a settlement to a now unwinnable war. So the fall of Paris could lead to an early victory for the central powers. Such an early end to the war might prevent many of the lesser countries from entering into the war at all.

I think it all depends on whether the French army is destroyed or not. If the French army IS destroyed in 1914, then I think the Germans win the war. Their land gains will be good to get back their colonies. Would the British rather have some marginally valuable colonies or bargain with the Germans to obtain, say, an independent Belgium?

[Chengar Qordath]

Originally Posted by NHBL

In the early days of the war, the US government wasn't really involved in any loans to the Entente. And if Paris fall, I suspect that neutral bankers would be less willing (or charge higher interest) to loan money to the Entente nations. Likely a financial problem...

Italy would be less confident in an Entente victory, and might well stay neutral longer. That leaves fewer Austrian troops tied up on that frontier...though some would be necessary. But they aren't in combat, so loosing fewer people and using fewer resources.

IMO, if Paris falls we might well see Italy decide to belatedly honor its alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary; their irredentist claims against France are not as strong as those against Austria-Hungary, but they did exist and more importantly Italy was primarily interested in making sure they were on the winning side of the war.

If Paris falls we might also see minor neutrals like Romania join the Central Powers in the hopes of getting a small share of the spoils and the benefit of being on the winning side.

[rast]

There were no fixed plans for that. The 1905/6 memorandum foresaw a siege by second line troops. In 1914, 1st German army was ordered to march in direction Paris, but this then changed as they went after the BEF and the French field forces.
A neutralisation of the rail hub Paris would have greatly complicated all shifting of French forces.
So let's assume the HKKs are combined into one cavalry army and are given several Landwehr brigades plus four engineer regiments and some siege artillery. This force only lays a loose siege around Paris, but is able to close all rail connections by blowing up some viaducts.
Now Joffre has serious problems in establishing the new 6th army. Thus 1st German army is not stopped, but follows French 5th, while the BEF struggles for a port.
Result: French forces slip away to the south, Germans take Paris, French fortress belt and most of northern France including the Channel ports. Belgian amry surrenders in Antwerp.

[Kaiser James I]

Originally Posted by Waldo

Well the Germans weren't actually trying to besiege Paris. The whole idea behind the Schlieffen Plan was to attempt to inflict a quick defeat on the French army and end the war in the west so that Germany's army could then be sent east before the Russians were able to fully mobilize their forces and get them to the front. Von Schlieffen specifically wanted to avoid a siege of Paris because the siege of Paris in the Franco-Prussian War had lasted for months. The Plan intended to trap and defeat the French army around Paris, and thereby force a French surrender, but wasn't actually trying to besiege the city itself.

Edit: I guess we can still explore a fall of Paris without a siege though

If say the Germans were successful, and they were able to destroy the French army and then enter Paris, then that may very well have led to their victory. After that the French would likely realize that there was little chance of them still winning in the west with their army defeated and captured, and they might then attempt to negotiate the best settlement they could get. With the land war in the west over the British might still be able to defeat Germany on the sea and take its colonies, but Russia would be in a very dire situation if Germany was then able to send most of its land forces east, and so Russia might also have little choice but to seek a settlement to a now unwinnable war. So the fall of Paris could lead to an early victory for the central powers. Such an early end to the war might prevent many of the lesser countries from entering into the war at all.

Okay, even if the German Army take Paris and the French surrender and then months later the Russians surrender too, how do the Germans get the British to surrender? Germany would find itself in almost the same situation as it did in 1940 with Britain as the holdout. What could they do?

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Kaiser James I

Okay, even if the German Army take Paris and the French surrender and then months later the Russians surrender too, how do the Germans get the British to surrender? Germany would find itself in almost the same situation as it did in 1940 with Britain as the holdout. What could they do?

What could Britain do but cut a deal? WW1 isn't WW2. The pressure by the US on Britain would be intense (i.e. no loans nor respecting the blockade) so the main British means of waging economic war are gone before they are even implemented.

[Askanas]

I don't see France surrender after the fall of Paris. They had just agreed with Britain and Russia to not conclud a separate peace, and that they called the battle of the Marne a miracle, shows that they wheren't so confident to hold out against the Germans.

I think the war would still going to get very long and bloody as in OTL. Italy and Romania would still join the entente, as they overestimated them selves. Perhaps Gustav V. (Schweden) could be persuaded to join the centrals, as well as Reza Schah Pahlavi (Iran). Finaly Russia would colapse and Britain would have to negotiate.

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by Askanas

I don't see France surrender after the fall of Paris. They had just agreed with Britain and Russia to not conclud a separate peace, and that they called the battle of the Marne a miracle, shows that they wheren't so confident to hold out against the Germans.

I think the war would still going to get very long and bloody as in OTL.

Except the the loss of Paris probably means the loss of moch of northern France, as the railway system there was "radial" from the capital.

In principle, the French army could hold out further south, eg in Burgundy, but this involves such a huge loss of territory that it's hard to see how they could hope to win. They might hang on into 1915 in the hope that Russia could rescue them, but after Gorlice-Tarnow even that hope would be gone.

[Atreus]

I think we have to ask ourselves what condition the German army is in when it reaches Paris (assuming, of course that they can take it). Even assuming that they can blow through whatever Allied forces muster in their path, whatever force reaches Paris is quite likely going to be burned out, logistically stretched, and vulnerable to an Entente counterattack. Taking Paris would be a huge victory for the Germans, but if they are immediately forced to concede it the ramifications would be equally punishing; a repeat of Moscow, perhaps?

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by Atreus

I think we have to ask ourselves what condition the German army is in when it reaches Paris (assuming, of course that they can take it). Even assuming that they can blow through whatever Allied forces muster in their path, whatever force reaches Paris is quite likely going to be burned out, logistically stretched, and vulnerable to an Entente counterattack. Taking Paris would be a huge victory for the Germans, but if they are immediately forced to concede it the ramifications would be equally punishing; a repeat of Moscow, perhaps?

Well, after the Marne they were able to march 50+ miles back to the Aisne, so if victorious they can presumably advance a similar distance. They are tired, but nowhere near collapsing.

And occupying Paris isn't really necessary. If they can push as far as Melun, they sever the rail links between Paris and the eastern border, making if much harder for France to supply her armies there. And once those have to fall back, the Germans' own lines of communication become quite a bit shorter.

[yourworstnightmare]

Much depend on the state of the French army. If it's still in shape to resist, losing Paris won't mean a surrender from France. If the army is completely shattered and defeated, France would surrender quickly.

[Alratan]

I would say that reaching paris could be a disaster for the Germans, as they will have very substantially outrun their logistics, and the Entente counter-attack would be devastating - it would leave them in a worse place than iOTL.

[Grey Wolf]

Presumably the Entente railhead is full of stores and ammunition etc so if the Germans capture that then they go a long way towards resupplying themselves.

The blow to Entente morale is going to be enormous - even if the French had contingency plans and had put on a brave face about the possibility, it actually happening is going to sap their will to fight.

The financial markets are going to panic, and Lloyd George will have only JUST got their agreement on other matters, this is going to set them all off again.

As long as the Germans can hold Paris, they've taken a big step forward towards winning the war - as said above, if an immediate French counter-attack drives them out then its a smaller morale boost for them, and the French will be able to pick themselves up

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Alratan

I would say that reaching paris could be a disaster for the Germans, as they will have very substantially outrun their logistics, and the Entente counter-attack would be devastating - it would leave them in a worse place than iOTL.

I for one wonder what would happen if the Germans do manage to take Paris but are then utterly beaten by a well timed allied counter-attack.

[Super Parker Brothers]

Originally Posted by Askanas

I don't see France surrender after the fall of Paris. They had just agreed with Britain and Russia to not conclud a separate peace, and that they called the battle of the Marne a miracle, shows that they wheren't so confident to hold out against the Germans.

</p>
They had a similar agreement for WWI.

[Mikey]

What are the terms Germany would demand from a defeated France? Being able to close off the Western front and focus on Russia seems like a bigger goal than maximizing their gains from the French. Once France goes, how much is Britain going to commit to helping Russia?

[Atlantic Friend]

Originally Posted by Mikey

What are the terms Germany would demand from a defeated France?

In 1914-1915 the terms could afford to be generous, but would definitely encompass more annexations in Lorraine, the demilitarization of the French eastern life of fortified places, and colonial gains as well. Oh, and reparations aimed at crippling France's economy and industry of course. A little German Versailles diktat.

Being able to close off the Western front and focus on Russia seems like a bigger goal than maximizing their gains from the French. Once France goes, how much is Britain going to commit to helping Russia?

Once France falls, Britain has no chance BUT commit to help Russia to the fullest IMHO. It's either that or accepting to play second fiddle to Germany, and bowing down to a continental hegemon, which is possible, but quite unlikely (prestige issue, making sure there's no real dominant continental power, the whole Congress of Vienna policy).