AFAIK the french invaded Alsace-Lorraine in 1914 with two armies was there any chance that the Germans could pull a Tannenberg in AL and destroy one or both Armies ? And what would be the consequences of it, with a invasion of Belgium and without ?
The Germans effectively destroyed the armies anyway... the difference was that at Tannenberg they took a lot of prisoners, wheras in Alsace-Lorraine they inflicted a shit load of kia's and wias (over 100k)
The Germans inflicted roughly the same number of casualties in the battle of frontiers that they did at Tannenberg... so your question doesn't change much except the Germans have more prisoners to feed instead of bodies to bury
edit: the lovely people at wikipedia somehow label the battle of the frontiers as a "german victory" but Tannenberg was a "decisive German victory"... I fail to see how effectively eliminating 15 percent of the entire French army with little or no less to your self isn't decisive but hey they are a "trusted source"
I have two Thesis:
1) Nobody give a penny to France and was 'rationaly' to think who that invasion gonna fail, for that is a regular victory. besides russias was invading 'true prussian territory'(konisberg) and a victory in Tanneberg humillated the Russian.
2) Russia was considered the main threat(historically was true) and when Russia was more close to german territory.. the pro russian historicician that was the main humillation from russia and the causes of all their defeats.
The Battle of the Frontiers effectively eliminated France's ability to conduct offensive warfare on a multi army scale for the rest of the year and allowed Germany the strategic freedom to concentrate additional forces on the eastern front to drive the russians out of german territory
Considering the body counts in those two battles where nearly identicle, the nationalist trolling is overwhelming
edit: They also label the Somme as a British tactical and strategic effects positive to the entente (I don't see how losing 50 percent more men than the enemy and not gaining any vital ground could be defined as victory but hey wiki says it so it must be true)
They also claim the Somme forced the Germans to retire to the Hindenberg line... when even an idiot can see this was done to free up reserves AND to brace themselves to curb stomp the nivelle offensive
what a great victory the somme was huh?
Verdun is listed as a French tactical victory... umm is wiki aware of how much territory they lost and that they lost more men?
The difference was that the Russians lost whole corps in mass and had to write off these formations. I.E. no cadres left.
The French had lost vast amounts of infantry from 4 armies, but had plenty more half trained reservists to toss into the meat grinder. The cadres remained, so more flesh could be hung on those bones. The Russians had to recreate theirs from scratch. Also remember that the battle of the frontiers extended into the Ardennes and included 4 French armies.
The difference has been pointed. In the East the Germans destroyed entire Corps, there were mass surrenders, lots of captured guns and everyone agreed it was a crushing defeat.
France was driven back and suffered heavy losses but there were no other tangible signs of a large defeat. No surrenders of entire units, large numbers of captured guns, etc.
People perceived the two differently at the time and rightly so. If you had the same number of losses for the French but had the Germans pocket the units and get a mass surrender like they got in the East it would have had big effects in terms of moral for both sides.
Michael
The problem with a Tannenberg style victory, is that it requires room for manevoure which you don't have on the western front near some of the strongest fortifications in the world. The Battle of the Frontiers was the result of a different kind of warfare because of geography and a marginally more organised enemy than Tannenberg.
its hard to have mass surrender when you have already killed everyone with artillery strikes and machine gun fire
just because the french where not as inclined to surrender as the Russians (the Russians had no warm food or boots, plus the French where imbued with Japanese ww2esque doctrine) doesn't make Germany's destruction of 15 percent of their available forces for the entire front in a single battle less decisive
This would be the ww1 equivilent of operation mars
It does change again how things are perceived though, it does effect both sides moral.
In the present case it's more about organization IMHO. You can shoot a division to bit, it keeps the ability to integrate fresh recruits and rebuild battalions. You lose it entirely, you have to build it from scratch.
To get back to the OP, an Alsace-Lorraine Tannenberg sounds a more modest objective than the original German plan, which aimed to bag the entire French Army facing them.
In the present case it's more about organization IMHO. You can shoot a division to bit, it keeps the ability to integrate fresh recruits and rebuild battalions. You lose it entirely, you have to build it from scratch.
A decimated regiment always leaves you a cadre of trained (and experienced) officers and soldiers, IMHO. A surrounded regiment that goes into captivity leaves you a big, gaping hole.
If you look at the French NCO and Junior officer casualty returns this is not the case.