Germany fights France in 1905.

WI during the Russo-Japanese War, Germany decides that now that Russia is busy dealing with troubles to the East now is a perfect time. The Tangier Crisis just began, and the Kiaser seeing a chance not to be missed orders the army out.

How would this war go about? Through Belgium? Or straight to Paris like the last war?

After the Prussian-French war of 1870/71, the French systematically built up their fortresses, including (in)famous Verdun. Don't know how far progressed the works were in 1905. Maybe Verdun and Toul are weaker. The Schlieffen plan was already there, wasn't it?

Max Sinister said:

After the Prussian-French war of 1870/71, the French systematically built up their fortresses, including (in)famous Verdun. Don't know how far progressed the works were in 1905. Maybe Verdun and Toul are weaker. The Schlieffen plan was already there, wasn't it?

Click to expand...

The Schlieffen plan was made as a result of the Russo-Japanese war; before that war Germany had planned on a Russia first policy, but Russia's poor performance convinced the Germans that France was a greater threat.

Given that the Germans thought of it later in 1905, it would hardly take much of a stretch for something very much like the Schlieffen plan to be executed though. In this case it would be the original plan rather than Moltke the younger's butchered version of it, which means Dutch territory is also violated but the right wing is much, much stronger. Britain might not be quite as quick helping France either; they were much closer in 1914 than they were in 1905.

On the other hand, the German army has not gone through the changes that came about as a result of German observations of the Franco-Prussian war, but then France's 1912 military reforms have yet to happen as well. We might well end up with something quite different from the historical western front.

I think with Russia out of the war and Britain being weaker, Germany will easily win. Now if Italy joins the war too, they could get (back) Savoy, Nice and Tunis, or even Corsica and Djibouti. Afterwards, though, you can expect that Britain and France will so much thirst for revenge, A-H is getting weaker and weaker, Russia recovers from the war, and Italy might switch sides if they don't get South Tyrol.

Well, France's initial casualties in OTL WWI can be largely ascribed to offensive a outrance - which Joffre inculcated. The French of 1905 (things began to change that year, in fact) are much more defensive than those of 1914. So I can see them constantly fighting attritional defensive battles against the Germans.

p.27 said:

. . . the commission that wrote the December 1913 regulations criticized the 1895 regulations for considering defense as a way of "drawing the enemy onto terrain where one can fight him under the best conditions." Rejecting this concept, the December regulations asserted: "Only the offensive can break the will of the adversary." . . . The 1895 regulations had said, "The artillery begins the combat, prepares partial attacks as well as the decisive attack, and finishes the battle."

Click to expand...

We're used to artillery being of negligible effect because of the excellent German defensive systems. Given that they'll be attacking, and if defending during these early periods at all, will be doing so from slit trenches, behind hedges or farm walls, I envisage some pretty nasty casualties for the Germans. That said, it's important to remember the British experiences in '14. Firing over open sights at infantry resulted in the artillerymen not having great life-expectancies. Since the French are operating under the 1895 regs (see above), however, they'll soon decide to use terrain even more advantageously.

But a big potential problem for France is the number of troops available. In his memoirs Joffre claims to have increased troops available by shifting men from the safe Italian frontier pre-war. Nobody's done that in '05.

There's a widespread belief hereabouts that the Schlieffen Plan was weakened by Moltke later on. But AFAIK the rail infrastructure couldn't handle both supplying the '14 armies and bringing up reinforcements. So employing a larger army creates even greater problems of supply. If the Germans fail to win quickly, then they could end up with a lot of men at the front without any ammunition. I, for one, would not like to spend my time in a German army that couldn't be sure it was going to receive bullets.

Anyone know what mood Italy was in during '05?

Officially it was allied to the Central Powers even when the war began. During the first Morocco crisis, however, they already supported France. I suggested them joining the war against France, but that mustn't be sure... OTOH, Britain-France-Italy(-Japan) probably still loses against Germany + A-H.

Max Sinister said:

Officially it was allied to the Central Powers even when the war began. During the first Morocco crisis, however, they already supported France. I suggested them joining the war against France, but that mustn't be sure... OTOH, Britain-France-Italy(-Japan) probably still loses against Germany + A-H.

Click to expand...

Dunno . . . remember that in '14 the UK has a pretty tiny army. In '05 it's only a few years after the Empire sent a huge number of troops to crush the Boers. Plus, there's an intriguing point about the British that I'd forgotten. Remember Fisher's Baltic Plan? He's First Sea Lord in '05, after all. If the BEF deploys largely to Pomerania rather than Belgium, it would make up for the absence of Russia's armies. Indeed, merely the threat would be substantial. As I noted above about Germany, however, getting supplies through would be critical.

Huge number? OK, how huge exactly? Don't forget Germany had 12 million men under arms in WW1.

Max Sinister said:

Huge number? OK, how huge exactly? Don't forget Germany had 12 million men under arms in WW1.

Click to expand...

13.4 M, if we're being picky. Pre-mobilisation: 880,000, post mobilisation: 4.5 M.

The BEF, not to be confused with the total Imperial Army, mustered over 100,000 men, and represented a very large fraction of the existing Regular Army. The pre-war strength: 247,500. Post-mobilisation (most of whom were unequipped): 733,500. Boer War Imperial deployment to S Africa: 500,000 men

Other stats taken from p.245, The World War I Databook.

So while the '05 British Army including Boer War vets won't compare in size to the German army, it could do two things because it's bigger than the '14 forces available:

1) Make up for French forces that haven't yet been redeployed from the Italian border.
2) Threaten the German coast - provided the RN can penetrate the Denmark Strait and then get through all those terrifying inlets (perfect for torpedo-boat attack) to support the army.

I don't necessarily think Britain and France are likely to win, but I'm not sure they're more likely to lose than in '14. Like the real war, I can see this one going either way. There's no signal Russian threat in this ATL and the French have fewer divisions initially available. However, the French have a much more reasonable approach to warfare, and there are more recently trained Imperial troops (and persumably equipment) available instantly.

MrP said:

Dunno . . . remember that in '14 the UK has a pretty tiny army. In '05 it's only a few years after the Empire sent a huge number of troops to crush the Boers. Plus, there's an intriguing point about the British that I'd forgotten. Remember Fisher's Baltic Plan? He's First Sea Lord in '05, after all. If the BEF deploys largely to Pomerania rather than Belgium, it would make up for the absence of Russia's armies. Indeed, merely the threat would be substantial. As I noted above about Germany, however, getting supplies through would be critical.

Click to expand...

By 1905 the fortifications around Copenhagen and the Baltic entrances were faily advanced and Denmark was firmly hold as a German vassal. So any attempt to land a BEF in Pommerania would first have to seize Copenhagen and Zealand, which easily could have the Dardanelles look like kindergarten. The probable cause of war will be the Danes mining the straits on German request and Copenhagen then being supplied/reinforced from the south by the Germans. Even a relatively weak German 1905 fleet will make the minesweeping a very difficult task, and first them you can considder landing, let alone storming Copenhagen. Pommerania is far away, and the war in France probbably over by now.

By 1905 the French Army was much weaker than in 1914, both in numbers and in quality. The reforms of 1911 did much, and by 1905 the French army still was in a state of general distrust after the Dreyfuss afair and what followed. My guess is that a 1905 campign will end pretty much like the OTL 1940 one. After all it was the "Miracle on the Marne" (ie a "wild" offensive) that saved the French in 1914, the more defensive stance of 1905 lessens the possibilities of that kind of miracles, but leaves passive French troops confronting active Germans - 1940 35 years ahead - but perhaps taking a few weeks more.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

If Russian and Japan end their war in May of 1905, about two months after Germany invades France, would Russia go on to fight Germany? Or would it sit back licking its wounds?

Austria-Hungry, and Italy I believe would be on Germany's side. Italy has yet to make Empire building, for that was to be in the first Balkan war. AH had its army, as well as no problems to the south other then the Ottomans.

The Ottoman's may take interest in the war as well, with France and possibly England lossing its prestige, and economy it would be that few looking to pounce on the sick man of europe.

Redbeard said:

By 1905 the fortifications around Copenhagen and the Baltic entrances were faily advanced and Denmark was firmly hold as a German vassal. So any attempt to land a BEF in Pommerania would first have to seize Copenhagen and Zealand, which easily could have the Dardanelles look like kindergarten. The probable cause of war will be the Danes mining the straits on German request and Copenhagen then being supplied/reinforced from the south by the Germans. Even a relatively weak German 1905 fleet will make the minesweeping a very difficult task, and first them you can considder landing, let alone storming Copenhagen. Pommerania is far away, and the war in France probbably over by now.

Click to expand...

I totally agree about the difficulties of getting troops to Pomerania - but I mention it as apossibility because it appears to've been a pet theory of Jackie Fisher's. It might've happened, but, like you, old boy, I think substantial casualties for the RN are a best-case scenario.

Hm, I honestly hadn't realised the French army was so weak in '05.

linky

What was the Liege situation in '05? The above link has Ger start developing super-heavy siege arty in '07. While plans for the BEF, let alone deploying it to Belgium/France weren't finalised till after '05. 10 May, 1912 is noted as the date of serious expansion of the German Army.

The site linked above said:

Germany==1913 > The German Army drops all plans for fighting a defensive war with limited aims - the Schlieffen Plan becomes the sole German military plan
==1913 > The influential German General Bernhardi advocates mass infantry attacks to bring victory by sheer force or “shock

Click to expand...

So will Germany necessarily attack straight away in this war? Someone's got to, but the French don't seem to want to, and the Germans aren't sure. Britain's naval expedition seems the best bet.

To be honest, diplomacy was still a possibility in '14, it just got ignored. Given the above lack of will to attack, I can see the diplomats averting war even after mobilisation.

The issues that come to mind are:
ÿ If the Germans don’t have to have a strong force in the East they would have 3 additional corps as well as the corps pulled from the right wing – believe 4 corps
ÿ If the Germans don’t swing through Belgium then England doesn’t enter the war (like 1914) - will cost the Germans in initial battles
ÿ With England and Russia out of the war and the German navy defeating French navy and being able to blockage and land behind Fr forces France would be in bad shape
ÿ Italy enters war on side of Germany – so 3 – 4 corps are subtracted from Fr forces fighting Germans – not good for France

As said Britain is in a better position here, the German navy has only just begun its build up (IIIRC) and we've just had the Boer War.

Also- did Germany have the huge numbers of American made MGs at this point?

Well, the Kriegsmarine didn't achieve that much IOTL, so does that matter?

Leej said:

As said Britain is in a better position here, the German navy has only just begun its build up (IIIRC) and we've just had the Boer War.

Also- did Germany have the huge numbers of American made MGs at this point?

Click to expand...

Don't forget the pre-dreadnought race, dear boy.
1905 German Navy (derived from Conway's):
19 Battleships
8 Coast Defence Ships
6 Armoured Cruisers
25 Light Cruisers
44 modern Torpedo Boats/Destroyers*
63 Earlier Torpedo Boats (approx. # as for some reason I had trouble totalling them)

1905 French Navy (ships launched 1890 onwards**):
18 Battleships
6 Coast Defence Ships
20-21 Armoured Cruisers
21 Protected Cruisers
8 Torpedo Cruisers
c.29 Destroyers
c.38 Sea-Going Torpedo Boats
168 Torpedo Boats*

RN (listing the whole fleet is counter-productive - and would get me beaten to death with a stirring spoon! The preponderance in this one class speaks for itself. Total refers to RN ships launched 1891 onwards):
50 battleships

* Germany considered Destroyers Torpedo Boats because of their role, not their size, so there's a strange discrepancy in numbers.

** A date chosen because the French, like the RN, kept a lot of older ships on. The Germans, not having a naval tradition, had a lot of very modern vessels dating from after 1890. There's also a problem because some ships got stalled in construction and in a few cases got launched years after their sisters, thus ending up in here. Not to mention some destroyers that were launched in batches 1889-x, for example. So treat the above figures as a reasonably close but imperfect guide.

Max Sinister said:

Well, the Kriegsmarine didn't achieve that much IOTL, so does that matter?

Click to expand...

It was the threat of it that was the pain point.
With the German navy just sitting over there we had to keep a lot of our navy close to home to keep a eye on it.


MrP- Exactly. British dominance is even more so.

Fenwick said:

If Russian and Japan end their war in May of 1905, about two months after Germany invades France, would Russia go on to fight Germany? Or would it sit back licking its wounds?

Austria-Hungry, and Italy I believe would be on Germany's side. Italy has yet to make Empire building, for that was to be in the first Balkan war. AH had its army, as well as no problems to the south other then the Ottomans.

The Ottoman's may take interest in the war as well, with France and possibly England lossing its prestige, and economy it would be that few looking to pounce on the sick man of europe.

Click to expand...

Fenwick

I don't think Russia would get involved as it was in the midst of a revolution at that time, as well as reeling from the military defeats and seriously strained financially.

Not sure whether Britain would get involved either, although a German invasion of Belgium might still do it. Don't forget, while the Entente started the previous year there is still a lot of mistrust between Britain and France while the naval threat from Germany is still relatively minor. It was only a few months ago that there was speculation on whether Britain would be at war with France due to the Russo-Japanese war, especially after the Dogger Bank crisis. In the event of a sudden German attack on France political opinion will probably favour helping the French. [Both to deter aggression and for reasons of balance of power]. However not sure if that will be enough to swing public opinion. This was a year before the Conservative government was heavily defeated so it may not feel that confident about taking the country into a major continental war. However a German attack through Belgium, especially including Holland as well could swing it.

If Britain did go to war it would probably see forces committed to the western front. While Fisher might have fancied a Baltic operation he wasn't in charge of the army. Also the immediate threat would be seen to be to France and the channel ports. Plus it would be possible to get the army into action in France without needing to land in hostile territory. A Baltic operation might be considered if the war was extended into the next year but pretty certain the army would go to France 1st.

Not sure that Austria would be that relevant as would it send troops to the eastern front. Otherwise it has nowhere to fight, unless it starts something in the Balkans. Also with Italy I suspect it would only go to war against France if it saw an early victory. A Britain edging toward France might make it pull back from any conflict given the vulnerability of the Italian coastline.

In the western front I'm not sure it would be as easy as some people seem to suggest. True the French might be divided after the Dyfuss affair but few things would prompt unity like a sudden attack from their hated enemy. Also while neither power is as formidable a machine as in 1914 this is probably more important for the attacker than the defender. As people said above the French had a much better doctrine in 1905 and even without any feedback from their allies in Manchuria they should quickly realise how big an advantage being on the defencive is. As such, while the Germans might win it would be very expensive and I suspect unlikely, at least not in a lightening campaign as they expected. France in 1940 had been shattered by the horrendous losses in 14-18 where France in 1905 were bitter at their defeat in 1870, totally different mindsets. Also while the German army was good it wasn't motorised so would still be relatively slow. Coupled with its need to attack and expectation of a quick war it could suffer very badly.

Not saying it would be a crushing defeat for the Germans. If nothing else they still have far more population and industrial resources to fall back on. However I could see them get badly blooded for relatively small gains. If they have attacked 3 neutrals [Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands] they will face considerable international hostility and if Britain does commit against them I could see a negotiated peace fairly quickly with the Germans withdrawing back across the border.

One other potential wild card. There is a power which traditionally keeps out of distant wars. However it had old links with France and may have concerns about a German dominated Europe, as much economic as political/military. Also public opinion may be offended by the attacks on the neutrals and the general lack of any excuse for the German attack. Furthermore it is in a bit of an expansionist mood itself. And Roosevelt does want to increase the US's foreign influence.

Another alternative. As someone said the initial German plan at the time was taking out the Russians 1st and it was only the weakness they revealed against the Japanese that made the Germans think they should attack France 1st. On the French border there is defencive terrain and a lot of fortresses, on both sides. What if the Germans strike east, into disordered and weakened Russia and rely on holding off any French attack? This would also be less likely to bring Britain in against them, especially as no need to attack any neutrals.

Steve

US involvement seems more likely from the beginning of hostilities in 1905 then in 1914.

Very good point about the main fear the Germans had was Russia not France. Would they take advantage of Russia's confusion and attack? Likely GB would not support France if the latter wanted to attack Germany to take the pressure off its ally. Still, if Germany had most of its forces committed to the eastern front, how vulnerable would they be to a French attack?

I would think even limited objectives by the French Army would be enough to secure a negotiated peace at least. If the French occupied the Rhur and the industrial parts of Germany it would be difficult for the latter to continue the war. Maybe even the Prussians would be left significantly isolated by some of the other German states suing for peace and leading to the breakup of the Empire.

Probably a repeat of the Franco-Prussian war. France was much more militarily weak in 1905 than 1914, plus the germans have more manpower and at this time better equipment, and better commanders.