What if the schlieffen plan somehow succeeded,and the Germans captured Paris bringing the war to an end. How would this change things in otl?
ww1 ends in 1914, Paris captured
- Thread starter Bullmoose713
- Start date
Deleted member 1487
If the French and Brits really bungle 1914 and the Germans make less mistakes it could theoretically happen, but its unlikely the war ends in 1914 even if Paris falls, negotiations to end the whole thing probably end it in 1915, as the Eastern Front and Britain are still in. But without France they probably try and bail after the Battle of Warsaw in 1914-15. Something like the September Program probably gets through, Poland and Lithuania are lost, A-H gets to do what it wants to Serbia, doesn't get anything from Russia. Maybe something like Mittelafrika happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelafrika
Germany pretty much then politically and economically dominates the continent but for Russia and Britain and the next round is then perhaps set with Russia and Britain working together to limit German influence or actively go to war to beat them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelafrika
Germany pretty much then politically and economically dominates the continent but for Russia and Britain and the next round is then perhaps set with Russia and Britain working together to limit German influence or actively go to war to beat them.
I think Paris could not be taken by the germans in 1914 : the fortifications around the city were too strong.
Germany needed not to fight on 2 fronts.
Deleted member 1487
They don't need to take it by storm, they could surround and starve it out like IOTL Franco-Prussian war. It wouldn't last as long either due to population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris_(1870–71)
historynutty
Banned
Certainly, such a conclusion would be a boon for Western Civilisation. The fatal bleeding of WW1 becomes merely a nasty wound which heals fairly quickly.
According the The Guns of August, before von Kluck's turn, the French/British forces in early September 1914 expected the Germans at the gates of Paris within about 48 hours if not sooner. There was serious discussion about declaring Paris an open city (and the government had already decamped for Bordeaux). That idea was squelched when Jules Guesde, the leader of the Socialists, ventured the idea that if that happened, it would be impossible to prevent sniper fire from parts of the working class areas, in which case Paris would have been burned.
Now: if Guesde had been overruled, and Paris occupied, my guess is that this would have had a sizable demoralizing effect on the French forces (sort of a "then what are we fighting for?" mentality) which could well have led to a German victory in the west not long thereafter--say, November 1914. That would have allowed some transfer of troops to the eastern front.
In the east, the Germans would have been propping up the Austrians as well as trying to go on the offensive against Russia. If the Germans don't get sucked into an offensive effort that would string out their supply lines, maybe the whole thing could be over by the end of 1915 (?).
Now: if Guesde had been overruled, and Paris occupied, my guess is that this would have had a sizable demoralizing effect on the French forces (sort of a "then what are we fighting for?" mentality) which could well have led to a German victory in the west not long thereafter--say, November 1914. That would have allowed some transfer of troops to the eastern front.
In the east, the Germans would have been propping up the Austrians as well as trying to go on the offensive against Russia. If the Germans don't get sucked into an offensive effort that would string out their supply lines, maybe the whole thing could be over by the end of 1915 (?).
Gallieni, the military governor of Paris, had two divisions of territorials and half a brigade of marines, which isn't much for a city the size of Paris. They started to activate the fortifications, but then were sent to help form Maunory's 6th field army.
So, in fact, the fortifications, which were outdated (not proof against German 21-cm howitzers), weren't even manned.
altamiro
Banned
Given the horror and proneness to overreaction that Heer developed against "franctireurs" in Belgium, there would definitely be acts of resistance and harsh reprisals which would galvanize the resistance further. If the German officers get their nerves under control and insist on a measured response, an occupation of Paris may be possible, but not without.
Riain
Banned
In practical terms if Paris was surrounded or captured it would cause serious problems for France be removing a major railway hub. However it would still be possible for France to gather troops from around the country, like the 6th Army, and move them up into the flank area north of Paris near the Channel. If such move are successful early enough the fall of Paris won't lead to the end of the war, the front lines will solidify in a similar shape as OTL but including Paris and perhaps being further east in Flanders. This is not necessarily a reason to surrender France.
Deleted member 1487
What other troops? They'd already stripped everything out to survive the invasion that IOTL was pushed to the outskirts of the city. What little forces were left were needed to ensure Italy didn't backstab them, which was certainly possible if France was about to go down, just like in 1940. Otherwise they were pretty much all in, so if something bad happens like the French 5th army and BEF get smashed during the Mons fighting the French 6th army gets steamrolled by the German 2nd when it goes for Paris. Maybe it ends up defending Paris as the fort garrison. But then there is nothing left to relieve them.
Garrison
Donor
Only if the Germans evacuate the Channel Ports, otherwise the British will not/cannot make peace.
Riain
Banned
IIUC the 6th army was formed from 2nd and 3rd line reserve divisions, indeed the French failure to use reserve divisions is cited as a reason why they did poorly in the early in the early days of the war. Surely there are some reserve divisions available somewhere for such a dire emergency, even at the risk of vulnerability elsewhere.
Deleted member 1487
No, not really. The French did use their reserve divisions, they just didn't train or equip them for front line combat like the Germans did, so when the French did use them in the front line early on they got slaughtered; they were basically meant to hold the flanks and reinforce depleted front line active divisions, rather than fight as their own units; of course that didn't work out so well in practice and they got thrown in with less firepower than a regular division and suffered accordingly.
There were a handful of reservists holding the Channel Ports, but they wouldn't have done more than die against the German 2nd army, as they were equipped only with old rifles, no artillery AFAIK. Really the French had nothing left to throw into the battle by the Marne, that was their last reserves. Had they lost an army early in the war in August they would have had an unfillable gap in the lines.
Lost Freeway
Banned
Riiiiiiight. The people who ran Germany in WWI may not have been the pure evil that the Nazis were. There is no reason to believe that a CP victory in WWI would lead to a glorious utopian present. That possibility only exists in the minds of American isolationists who blame Perfidious Albion and those Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys for bringing America out of its glorious isolation.
Deleted member 1487
I think he meant more in the sense of without the grinding bloody conflict that WW1 became after 1914 it would save Western Civ a LOT of problems that resulted in WW2 and enormous amounts of global death; Germany would then be in a position to ensure France remained at best a regional power vs. OTL when France and the Allies were too weak and divided to hold Germany down, but strong enough to piss her off enough to start WW2.
A clear victory in 1914 then ensures that the CPs have the strength to enforce a lasting peace, as they gain more than they lose by the victory. Taking France out as a Great Power and Paris as a financial center then ensures Russia doesn't have funding to continue rearmament and the beating they get in 1914 won't be recovered from quickly. Meanwhile Germany has enough bargaining chips to then get a serious colonial empire and sate her thirst for colonies and gets rich off the captive markets of Europe and Africa. Russia cannot compete with that, while Britain isn't strong enough on its own or willing to risk further global disruptions to trade to start another conflict (at least that is one argument) so there isn't WW2.
While the Imperial Germans then aren't particularly great and the conservative establishment does get a lot of political capital to maintain their authority, it doesn't blunt the rise of the SPD and left in Germany leading to greater liberalism in the long run, which will ensure the Germans don't become too harsh as leaders of Europe. At least that was the trajectory things seem to have been on with an early victory in WW1. So compared to OTL assuming that early German victory means no WW2 and Fascism and the German left winning out by the 1920s-30s, then that world is better in the long run due to no mass slaughters of the 20th Century as we know it. While certainly no utopia, it has the potential to be better than OTL.
Riain
Banned
I can't disagree, especially when the reality of the Germans getting to Paris really means a major success like the elimination of the 5th French Army and perhaps a Corps of the BEF in late August.
Riain
Banned
Entente victory lead to the US' isolation, French decline the locust years in Britain. I doubt a victorious Germany would become anything other than more liberal in the years/decades after a short/medium WW1 victory, millions of returned soldiers would demand it as voters.
Deleted member 1487
Frankly its the only way. France threw everything into the Marne and achieved numerical superiority thanks to the 6th army and BEF; there is a POD where the BEF can be destroyed and Mons and the 5th army then mauled by the Germans, which can then get you numerical parity or a slight German superiority, while in terms of fighting ability the German 2nd army well outclassed the French 6th army, which was a hodge podge of units without a normal French army's artillery allotment or training. As it was a single German reserve corps attacked the French 6th army as it was forming and pushed it back, which goes to show how badly it performed compared to the Germans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne#Western_flank
Without the BEF and a mauled French 5th the gap doesn't mean a thing and the Germans can continue to advance and rip into the French.
Riain
Banned
Just to flog this horse to ensure it's dead, what about pulling the 3rd Army back from Verdun, shortening the salient and redeploying the troops to the Paris are or western flank? Reducing the Verdun salient, surely in 914 Verdun is worth way less than Paris, would drastically shorten the French line. Sure it would free up German troops too but their redeployment west would probably take longer.
Deleted member 1487
They couldn't pull out they were too engaged to pull back. Verdun couldn't be evacuated either for the same reason.