WI Germany hadn't attacked Belgium during WWI?

[Sertak]

Any thoughts? Under "during" I actually mean the 1914 Campaign on Western Front.

 

[Max Sinister]

The question is: What they'd do instead? Attack Russia first and defend in the west? Try to advance through Alsace-Lorraine, where they have to pass Toul, Verdun and other fortresses?

 

[Captain]

They would have a hard time if they attacked through Alsace-Lorraine and the border where the main french was and when the British got involved it would probably be a defence war an all sides.

 

[Susano]

But certainly, concentrtaing on Russia would have been a sucessful strategy. However, this would have been contrary to the entire German doctrine of t he time, I think. Of course, though, once the A-L front stalemates you will get this anyways, probably much like IOTL, where Germany tried to focus on the Wets but ended up defeating Russia.

 

[Redbeard]

But certainly, concentrtaing on Russia would have been a sucessful strategy. However, this would have been contrary to the entire German doctrine of t he time, I think. Of course, though, once the A-L front stalemates you will get this anyways, probably much like IOTL, where Germany tried to focus on the Wets but ended up defeating Russia.

Concentrating on Russia first would only have brought the German main force deep inside Russia with the French and the British still only covered by a thin screen. That would be the ideal scenario for the 1914 French army with elan and loads of mobile 75mm batteries. The war would probably be decided before any significant Anglo-Saxon intervention can be seen. The British will still be on French side though, that was decided already by the German naval expansion. And if Belgium can't be used as the "excuse" for declaring war something else will be found.

We will see very little of trench warfare, but mechanisation will still prevail eventually. This time as support of movement in the first instance and not as something with which to overcome obstacles. So few if any heavy tanks but light fast tanks/tankettes and armoured cars, SP artillery and infantry carriers and loads of trucks to carry supplies.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Susano]

No. That is what the German planners feared. But IOTL, none of that happened. The Russians did not retreat into their interior lands, did not end up binding huge amounts of German troops. There is nothing to assume that this changes with a PoD in Germany. Hence, we must assume OTL-Russias military behaviour. In which case, Russia is quickly defeated and Germany can turn its attention westwards.

 

[Derek Jackson]

It would have been hard to get Britain to declare war without the attack on Belgium. That means no effective blockade. That changes a lot.

 

[Supernatural Rabbit Scrib]

The British will still be on French side though, that was decided already by the German naval expansion. And if Belgium can't be used as the "excuse" for declaring war something else will be

I am not so sure. Britain asked Serbia to comply fully with the Ultimatum. It would have to be one impressive excuse, and if Germany could somehow convince the British that France would not be destroyed as a great power, there's really nothing in it for Britain...

No. That is what the German planners feared. But IOTL, none of that happened. The Russians did not retreat into their interior lands, did not end up binding huge amounts of German troops. There is nothing to assume that this changes with a PoD in Germany. Hence, we must assume OTL-Russias military behaviour. In which case, Russia is quickly defeated and Germany can turn its attention westwards.

I wholly concur.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Even with the invasion of Belgium the British cabinet was divided.

I think that without that invasion Asquith would take the view that he could manage without Grey more easily than without Lloyd George.

So France attacks Alsarce and Lorrain as in OTL but with that area a bit better defended than in OTL. The craziness of offensive on such narrow front would only slowly become obvious.

Vast tracts of Russia would be taken.

Germany would have offered a treaty a little less severe than Brest Litovsk but enough to make it clear who won.

France would eventually see that there was not point and a Peace based on no particular changes between France and Germany might have been reached.

 

[Supernatural Rabbit Scrib]

Russian defeats on a massive scale in the east while the Germans fall back in good order in the west, slowing French advances. Revolution in Russia, with the Czar and much of the nobility bumped off. The last man standing, Duke Jamokeyouveneverheardofski, formerly 11th in line for the throne, displays the better part of valor and proclaims a Republic. An earlier Brest-Litovsk is signed, the Russian Republic releases France from the "No Seperate Peace" clause, which Russia has broken anyway, and Germany turns west. France prepares to defend her gains as Serbia is annexed into Austria-Hungary. The Ottoman Empire does something nasty under the pretext of the war that no European powers want, including Germany and Austria-Hungary, and threatens further nastiness. Britain secretly tells Germany that it can not see France destroyed as a great power, and furthermore, Ottoman agression will be met with a British military response that would technically require Germany to declare war on Great Britain. Germany reponds with a suggestion: it will be Perfidious Albion at her finest. Germany and Austria offer a wholly-unexpected cease-fire, offering a return to the status quo ante in the West. Great Britain strongly encourages France to accept it, indicating that if she does not, no British assistance will be forthcoming, as France is conducting a war of choice, not necessity. France balks. Germany is substantively stronger for her new territory and population, and that is a Very Bad Thing. But the French advance has ground to a halt, and counter-attacks from the bulk of the German Army start eating away at France's gains, with more surely to come. And Germany annihilated Russia in less than two months!

The troops are home by Christmas.

 

[schrammy]

Russian defeats on a massive scale in the east while the Germans fall back in good order in the west, slowing French advances. Revolution in Russia, with the Czar and much of the nobility bumped off. The last man standing, Duke Jamokeyouveneverheardofski, formerly 11th in line for the throne, displays the better part of valor and proclaims a Republic. An earlier Brest-Litovsk is signed, the Russian Republic releases France from the "No Seperate Peace" clause, which Russia has broken anyway, and Germany turns west. France prepares to defend her gains as Serbia is annexed into Austria-Hungary. The Ottoman Empire does something nasty under the pretext of the war that no European powers want, including Germany and Austria-Hungary, and threatens further nastiness. Britain secretly tells Germany that it can not see France destroyed as a great power, and furthermore, Ottoman agression will be met with a British military response that would technically require Germany to declare war on Great Britain. Germany reponds with a suggestion: it will be Perfidious Albion at her finest. Germany and Austria offer a wholly-unexpected cease-fire, offering a return to the status quo ante in the West. Great Britain strongly encourages France to accept it, indicating that if she does not, no British assistance will be forthcoming, as France is conducting a war of choice, not necessity. France balks. Germany is substantively stronger for her new territory and population, and that is a Very Bad Thing. But the French advance has ground to a halt, and counter-attacks from the bulk of the German Army start eating away at France's gains, with more surely to come. And Germany annihilated Russia in less than two months!

The troops are home by Christmas.

sounds verry plausable

 

[Max Sinister]

I also think Germany would've done better to attack in the east from the beginning, but they'd still need longer than just two months. One year would be better than I expect.

 

[David S Poepoe]

It would have been hard to get Britain to declare war without the attack on Belgium. That means no effective blockade. That changes a lot.

Britain would have entered the war anyway, it couldn't stand by why its 'allies' were defeated. If need be the Belgians would have been pressured by the British to permit the French to pass thru.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Britain would have entered the war anyway, it couldn't stand by why its 'allies' were defeated. If need be the Belgians would have been pressured by the British to permit the French to pass thru.

Britain had a Liberal governmentr depndendent on Irish Nationalist and Labour. There were pacifist feelings. There was no treaty obligation. I do not see us fighting if we did not have to.

 

[Riain]

IOTL Germany defeated the initial Russian advance into Prussia as well as capturing 1/2 of French industrial strength, I doubt any other plan could have achieved as much so soon. Attacking in the east first would have not destroyed Russian armies with such efficiency (135,000 beating 650,000), let alone captured 1/2 of France's industrial strength at the same time. German strategy was pretty good in broad strokes, France was a much more convenient target for Germany's initial offensive than Russia.

 

[stevep]

IOTL Germany defeated the initial Russian advance into Prussia as well as capturing 1/2 of French industrial strength, I doubt any other plan could have achieved as much so soon. Attacking in the east first would have not destroyed Russian armies with such efficiency (135,000 beating 650,000), let alone captured 1/2 of France's industrial strength at the same time. German strategy was pretty good in broad strokes, France was a much more convenient target for Germany's initial offensive than Russia.

Riain

Germany strategy made certain that Britain would enter the conflict, with its considerable industrial and financial as well as later military might, along with the naval power that some think was crucial. Also, by invading Belgium it did a lot to alienate neutral opinion.

Also while the closely fought success in E Prussia was a German success it left Austria hanging in Galicia. [Not helped by their own decision to split their forces so they could mount large scale attacks on Serbia]. This gravely weakened Austria, which lost a large proportion of its professional force. That weakened the dynasty, encouraged aggression from other neighbours and meant the Germans had to help out the Austrians with steadily increasing assistance. If the Germans had concentrated the bulk of their forces in the east they could have destroyed far more of the Russian army, including its virtually irreplaceable long term professional forces. At the same time a slightly beefed up defence in A-L would have slaughtered the reckless French attacks as historically occurred. With both allied powers reeling a victory if slightly limited victory could have been achieved. I doubt if the Russians would have gone for a long war if offered anything but the most draconian terms given what happened after they lost to Japan. It would still have taken probably the best part of a year but with Russia crippled France would also have been forced to make peace.

Granted, if the German attack in the west had worked it would have been the most certain way of winning total victory quickly but many were already raising doubts about whether it could have succeeded before the war. It only got as close as it did because the recently adapted Plan XVII by the French saw them throwing themselves against powerful fortifications in A-L rather than fighting the main German armies they knew were planning to come through Belgium.

Steve

 

[M79]

I dunno, I doubt that the Germans would seriously alter the Schlieffen Plan once written.

But if the Germans focus their efforts on Lorraine and try to drive on Paris, then I see Russia falling about the same time in OTL and the UK sitting back and selling arms to everyone. Germany gets supplies internationally and can perform much more effectively, Italy is more likely to stay neutral if not be swayed into the Central Powers (retaking Savoy, Corsica, Tunisia, and perhaps a chunk of SE France right up to but not including Marseilles). Russia falls in 1916ish and settles more favorably, allowing Poland, Finland, and Ukraine to go but in smaller sizes and ridding them of their most rebellious provinces. Lenin does *not* go back and there is no Russian Revolution until much later. Germany then turns on France, taking Luxembourgh and annexing it after the conflict is over. France is allowed to throw troops into the German lines then get pushed back and Germany takes the rest of Lorraine and Franche-Comte, perhaps making the latter a puppet kingdom of some kind. Germany wins in 1917 and gains lots of satellites and a new customs union along with the rest of Lorraine and perhaps Franche-Comte.

 

[Riain]

Britain's naval, industrial and financial stranglehold on Germany could only have been lessened by territorial gains in the west, specifically Cap Griz Nez in Pas De Calais. Losing the 'race to the sea' lost Germany the war. Even if Britain didn't enter the war in Aug 1914 their decade long naval and commerical rivalry with Germany, and fixed interest in avioding a continental hegemon would have led them to join the war against Germany eventually, with all their naval and other advantages intact. And since Russia was later defeated and France wasn't, I think events bear this argument out.

 

[M79]

If the UK sits out too long and lots of American businessmen are making cash, the Americans are likely to be decidedly more neutral and/or reduce aid to the UK/FRA. If this happens, the war might get more balanced and Belgium could get tossed into the mess anyway.

 

[Max Sinister]

If Russia loses, I can see a simple revolution (bringing the Kadets or so to power) though. Although a rightwinger like Kornilov might try a putsch.