Germany wins WW1 in 1914

[Gwai Lo]

Moltke is out of the picture, the Schlieffen Plan works successfully and the Germans knock out Paris right away. What happens? Feel free to talk about the events immediately following the fall of Paris, the 20th century as a whole (no protracted Great War, no stab in the back theory, no Hitler? No Holocaust? no war time funds to drag America out of the Depression, no Marshall Plan?) or even what the world would look like today and beyond.

[wkwillis]

A purely naval WWI between occupied Europe and Britain? Russia fighting on the ground war alone with lots of British money and support after Serbia is knocked out in 1915?
Italy, Turkey, and Rumania joining in against Russia?
Japan changing sides?
The British have just as expensive a war, but with much, much, less casualties. They also grab all the former French and Belgian colonies, and the German ones, and then the Italian ones.
Britain builds a railroad to Russia to give them arms? The double track the transiberian railroad instead, or as well?

[Gwai Lo]

Can you picture a scenario where the Germans would either win or sign a treaty with Britain, leaving them to become the dominant world superpower?

[Codeman]

The British would have to give in as without France there is no western front to keep the Germans occupied. Russia has problems that no amount of money or supplies could fix. Basically the British would have to land the BEF in Russia to keep it from collapsing against the full might of the Germans.

1914 France surrenders to the Germans. Germans attempt to get French railways operational again as to bypass the blockade via the Mediterranean Sea. Italy stays with the central powers.

[Kriegdämmerung]

Even if the Germans capture Paris and get France to surrender (which seems unlikely that the French would give up so easily the second time around), they still have to get Britain to surrender, which won't happen until Britain captures all of the CP's overseas colonies and at least tears into the Ottoman Empire. Likewise, the Eastern Front, while poorly managed by the Russians, would have taken more than one year to crack. I have to say that Italy and Romania, who were pretty borderline, join in the Central Powers. Any peace will have a more Mitteleuropa-style Germany and not a colonial superpower...

[XNM]

I doubt it would be like a WWII german victory. It's likely that it would end up like the OTL end but with the Central Powers imposing their demands on the Allies. In Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg, a mod for HoI2, Germany got more African colonies, and a whole bunch more bells and whistles.

[Boom22]

There is no way on God's green earth the Schlieffen plan would have worked.
When he proposed it he was using it to get the Kaiser to add 20 divisions to the German army to make it happen, it also required Britain to stay neutral even as Belgium was stomped on

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by Gwai Lo

Can you picture a scenario where the Germans would either win or sign a treaty with Britain, leaving them to become the dominant world superpower?

Why would the British sign a treaty allowing the Germans to become the dominant world power?!

As mentioned before, the Schlieffen Plan would never have worked and its about time that Moltke does get some credit for devising the war plan.

[Gwai Lo]

Let's put it this way, I am developing a back story for a piece of science fiction. In this piece, Germany wins the first World War, and gradually develops into the dominant world power. The Kluck and von Bulow armies getting separated under Moltke's command seems like one of those pivotal moments where history could have diverged widely from what we know today. As I understand it, whether it is Moltke's fault or not is a subject of considerable debate. That's not really the meat of what I'm looking for here, because I can use a number of devices to make the victory over Paris more plausible (such as a last minute plan that has a more efficient strategy.)

I didn't mean to imply that Germany would become a superpower right off the bat, rather that the victory over France is the inciting incident. The further we move away from this event the more artistic license I have, and by the end of the story we have moved pretty far away from 1914. But I am looking for some speculation on a plausible way that Germany could end up assuming the role of the most powerful nation in the world, both politically and technologically. Without the disaster of the First World War, the stab in the back theory, the economic recession and subsequent Depression possibly averted or impact lessened, Hitler's rhetoric wouldn't be as appealing. He might remain a shabby artist. With Hitler's rise to power and the Economic Miracle in mind as proof that the German people can be leveraged by their leaders for good or bad, what could they do with a truly brilliant and mostly benevolent dictator replacing the reign of Hitler and his dubious motivations? I want to explore how nationalism could have actually stimulated positive momentum, while keeping the vague air of displaced cataclysm hanging in the air. Going back to immediately after the defeat of Paris, what would it take to defeat Russia and force Britain to back down? What would the political landscape of Germany be like after the victory? What type of leader would appeal to the German people of the twenties or thirties? I'm focusing almost exclusively on Germany, but what might other important nations be doing?

These questions form the basis for the beginning of my story, there is much more to it but I want to make sure the details have some degree of plausibility. So I encourage you to help me out with a bit of speculation. I have my story arc prepared and I'm trying to build facts around it so I know what world my story exists in before I write it. Any help is appreciated, and your insights so far have been helpful.

[Gwai Lo]

And when I say facts, that is to say made up facts that can be taken with a grain of salt.

[Kalan]

To have the Schlieffen Plan succed in taking Paris you would have to change at least two things: First the fleet has to be reduced and the army increased. IOTL from 1897 on the fleet got more money than the army. This money was wasted, as the fleet proved to be useless against the Royal Navy. The second change is that the size of the army must be increased. IOTL the french army had numerical superiority despite the fact that there were more Germans than French. So what you need is a political change in Berlin.

With these two changes the Schlieffen Plan can work and the Germans capture Paris.

And now what? Schlieffen hoped that after the fall of Paris France would surrender. Let's examine this:
Yes the French would have lost their capital, and much of their industry, but in the Franco-German war it took still three months to get a peace after the Battle of Sedan. And then France stood alone.
Now they will be supported by the English - the violation of Belgian neutrality will certainly lead to an entry of Britain - and the Russians have made the first inroads to germany.
So it is quiet possible that France decides to fight on. This leaves the german in a two front war. They certainly could conquer the rest of France, but then the Russians are likely to made significant gains.
Or they could turn east as IOTL. This is probably the better solution, as they will easily conquer large parts of Russia (especially the Ukraine which they'll need because of the naval blockade). Without Paris the allies face a logistical problem, so they will have problem in starting counteroffensives against the Germans soon.
So an attack against Russia might win the war for Germany, but their victory is even after the Fall of Paris not assured.

[Admiral Canaris]

I know the peacetime French army was bigger, as their basic service term was longer, but the wartime fully mobilised army? That doesn't make any sense if Germany's population was 1/3 larger. Where they that bad planners even in WW1?

[Susano]

Originally Posted by Boom22

There is no way on God's green earth the Schlieffen plan would have worked.
When he proposed it he was using it to get the Kaiser to add 20 divisions to the German army to make it happen, it also required Britain to stay neutral even as Belgium was stomped on

But had the Marne Batte gone different, Paris would most likely have fallen. Of course, this wouldnt have knocked France right out, but may well have already decided the outcome.

[Earling]

But had the Marne Batte gone different, Paris would most likely have fallen.

One question: Is Paris completely indefensible?

I know it fell without a fight in WW2, but in the Franco-Prussian war it famously held out for months.

It always seems to be taken as writ that there would be no battle for Paris, victory on the Marne would be enough, but is that actually true?

[Kalan]

Originally Posted by Admiral Canaris

I know the peacetime French army was bigger, as their basic service term was longer, but the wartime fully mobilised army? That doesn't make any sense if Germany's population was 1/3 larger. Where they that bad planners even in WW1?

IIRC the problem was, that the nobels feared that mass conscription of the urban population would corrupt the army with socialist thoughts and lead to an illoyal army. This was of course wrong as history tells, after all the declaration of War was supported by everyone (including the socialists).
Additionally the Germans spent less on the army per capita than the French which wasn't helpfull either.

And yes once the war had started the German Army was increased, but was to late for the Schlieffen plan.

[Admiral Canaris]

Originally Posted by Kalan

IIRC the problem was, that the nobels feared that mass conscription of the urban population would corrupt the army with socialist thoughts and lead to an illoyal army. This was of course wrong as history tells, after all the declaration of War was supported by everyone (including the socialists).
Additionally the Germans spent less on the army per capita than the French which wasn't helpfull either.

And yes once the war had started the German Army was increased, but was to late for the Schlieffen plan.

Since it depended on rapid mobilisation. Yeah, then it makes sense. However, could this not be partially compensated by weakening the Elsass forces and luring the French in deeper, as the original Plan called for?

France was essentially mass traumatised by the War of 1870, and as a result put quite a lot of effort into military build-up. One could perhaps argue that the same war made the Germans overconfident. The main issue remained the fleet, of course.

[Susano]

There is also the idea that is touted here that the war was just bad timing for Germany, as France since the 1900s (so it is said in the idea) was in the midst of an arming up prgramm which put enough strain on teh finances that it would have to be ended in the 20s... dunno ho wmuch truth there is to that but sounds interesting...

[Geredis]

The only way, from my understanding of things, for Germany to have won WWI and taken France, is this:

-The Willy-Nicky telegrams actually manage to avert conflict between Germany and Russia, even if Russia decides to mobilize against the Austrians over Serbia.
-The Schleiffen Plan goes as it should have. This means that the Germans are more aggressive in Liege, they invest Antwerp to busy the Belgians, but not to the extent they did OTL. Also, when the armies move closer to Paris, the wide left hook is taken as necessary to strike at Paris from the south, instead of the tight hook used to bring about the battle on the Marne.

===
And even if that happens though, I do see the following occuring as well:

-If Germany tries to take French colonies in the Americas, there's the possibility the US would invoke the Monroe Doctrine, drawing hte US into second phase of the war alongside Russia and Britain. Of course here, with the US going to war in 1915 likely, Wilson cannot manage to get elected in 1916, so who takes charge there, is there any chance of TR running, and winning, in that election?

So yes, it is possible, I think, for a German victory in 1914 over France, but only at the expense of an American theatre in South America and Africa as the British (in Africa) and the US (in South America) try to reclaim French colonies, either for themselves, or to return to France.

That brings up a question though...in this possible African campaign...how likely is it that there'd basically be a Second Fashoda Crisis, which actually -does- devolve into war between the UK and France?

[Boom22]

Germany didn't have the manpower to win at the Marne, the Schlieffen plan was to convince the Kaiser to create 20 more divisions in order to subdue France in 6 weeks. The German High Command never came up with any what if if Schlieffen Plan failed.

[Riain]

It was logistically impossible for the Schlieffen plan to succeed, Van Creveld spelled it out in his seminal book Supplying War. He explores various options that Germans could have taken to win in 1914 and all fall short on supply gounds. For example it would have been extrememly marginal to move some corps from the left wing to the right and get them in place by the Marne. He also looks at the formation of another army to follow behind the front to come into play at the time of the Marne, but that was logistically impossible since they couldn't supply the armies they had in the field, let alopne any more.

In the end, when they got into the Paris region they just couldn't get enough troop density to carry on. A gap will always open up somewhere as they advance.

I think the best they could do is create an army-group commander for the 1st/2nd/3rd armies, and encircle Lanzerac's 5th Army sometime between the 20th and 25th of August. This I think may allow them to close on Paris, and win the Race to the Sea, after which their big navy could be used decisively.