No Schlieffen Plan

[Fenwick]

Many historians argue that the Schlieffen Plan may not have been an actual plan as such, but instead was laid down in one 1905 hypothetical memorandum and a brief 1906 addition. Schlieffen may not have intended to be carried out in the form he laid down, instead, seeing it as perhaps an intellectual exercise.

So WI instead of this plan the germans never focused on that "knockout" blow to the French? What would they do? Try and attack France directly? Just stay behind their fortifactions and give the Russians everything they have?

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Fenwick

So WI instead of this plan the germans never focused on that "knockout" blow to the French? What would they do? Try and attack France directly? Just stay behind their fortifactions and give the Russians everything they have?

The second has been covered before on this site. Has the first, ie the German Army crash straight into the French?

[Tom_B]

Attacking Russia while trying to hold off France is the more probable plan. It was what Moltke the Elder favored.

Note doing this would mean Russia would go to a different war plan. It would pull back a defense line based on the Niemen and the Bug and commit less forces against AH.

With no violation of Belgium Britian would not immediately jump in. However it would lean towards France and Russia and might find an excuse for entering later. Japan would nt immediately jump in either but might find Tsingtoa too tempting eventually.

There is a misconception amongst some people that this strategy is an easy layup for the Central Powers. It os a better strategy than their historical one but still has some problems.

[Max Sinister]

If Germany attacked straight, they'd face the strongest French fortresses on their way (Toul and Verdun, but also others, like Dijon, Besancon, Lyon and more.) Of course, the chance that Britain enters the war is reduced, which would be a big win already. But the state of the weapons favored the defender, so I think an attack in the East would be more promising.

[Dan Carlin]

Well, I've often thought about this.

If only it had been realized that the defensive would have such an advantage (as demonstrated in several pre-WW1 conflicts) the Germans indeed could have let the French break upon their defenses while they knocked the Russians out of the war.

Considering how damaging a mere four corps were against Rennenkampf and company, imagine what 25 divisions might have done...

How many troops would it have taken to hold the French off I wonder?

[Redbeard]

Seen from 1914 attacking Russia while leaving France would be a total no go. Russia was the power not to be expected to be knocked out by a few battles and the Russian mobilisation was expected to be relatively slow. This expected "pause" on the eastern front before the Russians could laiunch a serious offensive gave the Germans a hope of defeating France quickly, as had been done in 1870. With France defeated the Germans could then turn their main focus on the expected long and attritional war vs. Russia, which would demand Germany's full attention.

Attacking the Russians first would be unlikely to bring any early decision (like Napoleon experienced) but would seriously risk having the German Army stand exhausted inside Russia at the thin end of its supply line when the fully mobilised Russian army from close to its supply points attack in full force. BTW where/how should the German army stay during the winter of 1914/15 if the war starts in august 1914?. Well before winter however the quickly mobilised French can launch 100 Divisions (the Germans had 150 total) in an all out assault, which a thin German defensive line is unlikely to hold. In WWI the superiority of the defence wasn't expressed in defenders sitting in the relative safety of trenches and fortifications mowing down attackers, but more by the defender counterattacking when the attacker is outside the reach of his artillery. IOW a succesful defence required huge reserves and the defence usually suffered casualties on a rate similar to the attacker.

The French Army of 1914 was equipped, trained and deployed for the quick offense and I very much doubt a numerically inferior German force could have held them back.

From OTL we know that it was Russia who quitted first, but that was mainly from the extreme outcomes of the ill-lead Russian offensives 1914-16 wasting the originally reasonably well trained and equipped Russian army. If the war instead starts with a German assault on the thin Russian lines in the west and the main battle takes place in the heartland of Russia (during winter or just after?) the chances of a German success are small. Anyway the chances of the war lasting until winter are small, France will have decided the matter before that.

And BTW it doesn't matter if GB is in the war as they not will be able to weigh in on land before 1915 earliest and the sea only matters for Germany in long term.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[oberdada]

Originally Posted by Redbeard

Seen from 1914 attacking Russia while leaving France would be a total no go. Russia was the power not to be expected to be knocked out by a few battles and the Russian mobilisation was expected to be relatively slow. This expected "pause" on the eastern front before the Russians could laiunch a serious offensive gave the Germans a hope of defeating France quickly, as had been done in 1870. With France defeated the Germans could then turn their main focus on the expected long and attritional war vs. Russia, which would demand Germany's full attention.

Attacking the Russians first would be unlikely to bring any early decision (like Napoleon experienced) but would seriously risk having the German Army stand exhausted inside Russia at the thin end of its supply line when the fully mobilised Russian army from close to its supply points attack in full force. BTW where/how should the German army stay during the winter of 1914/15 if the war starts in august 1914?. Well before winter however the quickly mobilised French can launch 100 Divisions (the Germans had 150 total) in an all out assault, which a thin German defensive line is unlikely to hold. In WWI the superiority of the defence wasn't expressed in defenders sitting in the relative safety of trenches and fortifications mowing down attackers, but more by the defender counterattacking when the attacker is outside the reach of his artillery. IOW a succesful defence required huge reserves and the defence usually suffered casualties on a rate similar to the attacker.

The French Army of 1914 was equipped, trained and deployed for the quick offense and I very much doubt a numerically inferior German force could have held them back.

From OTL we know that it was Russia who quitted first, but that was mainly from the extreme outcomes of the ill-lead Russian offensives 1914-16 wasting the originally reasonably well trained and equipped Russian army. If the war instead starts with a German assault on the thin Russian lines in the west and the main battle takes place in the heartland of Russia (during winter or just after?) the chances of a German success are small. Anyway the chances of the war lasting until winter are small, France will have decided the matter before that.

And BTW it doesn't matter if GB is in the war as they not will be able to weigh in on land before 1915 earliest and the sea only matters for Germany in long term.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Germany would have had to set up mayny nations on the Russian terretorry.

With a succesful, "support but not anaxxation" propaganda toward the East it might have been possible, althought it is very unlikely.