AHC : A quicker WW1, Entente victory

[phil03]

From wikipedia article on the first battle of the Marne: '' By 9 September, it looked as though the German First and Second Armies would be totally encircled and destroyed. General von Moltke suffered a nervous breakdown upon hearing of the danger. His subordinates took over and ordered a general retreat to the Aisne River to regroup. The Germans were pursued by the French and British, although the pace of the Allied advance was slow — a mere 12 mi (19 km) a day. The German armies ceased their retreat after 40 mi (64 km), at a point north of the Aisne River, where they dug in, preparing trenches that were to last for several years.''

Without Moltke subordinates taking over, martial court fear?, you got the whole german army on the western front paralyzed precisely at the moment were the allied were on the verge of encircling the first, and possibly the second too, german army's. Such a move will create a HUGE gap on the northern flank of the whole german front and may lead to his destruction, giving the allied a free ride threw northern France and Belgium, strait to the Rhine.

At the very least it will force the german to retreat deeply, probably out of France at least, witch, in return will make the allied less likely to order OTL frontal attacks and more likely adopt a more defensive strategy, freeing soldier for the others theaters.

 

[LSCatilina]

As pretty much everyone seems to agree that an Entente victory in 1914 is unlikely, when would it be possible?
If the first step is to have French army adopting earlier a defensive position or to push back Germans furthern than IOTL (with Russians doing better on their side), what would allow the victory itself?

And, as it wasn't that much discussed, what would be the political consequences? I suspect Italy would join Entente more likely, but what about Balkans? And an eventual peace treaty : somewhat less harsh as pointed out, but would it be that much conciliant?

By exemple, without american intervention and Russian Revolution, could France or Italy push their exigences further?

 

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

The success of Churchill's original plan of forcing the Dardanelles with only naval units (very possible if any one of several small factors changed), would see major butterflies, from the reallocation of major Entente forces in the Caucasus, Salonika, Egypt, Iraq, and Gallipoli to other major theaters, relieve significant strain on the Russian economy and military caused by the blockade of Russia's main warm-water ports (Vladivostok and Archangelsk can only handle so much traffic), and a general realignment of several Balkan powers towards the Entente (Romania in particular) or neutrality at the least (Bulgaria for instance).

This has severe ramifications for the Balkan theater, given the importance of Ottoman and especially Bulgarian contributions in closing the Serbian front and crushing Romania upon entry, and tying up a significant expeditionary force at Salonika, and on the Eastern front as a whole. Significantly improving the capability of the Russian economy to trade, in addition to significantly improving the logistics of Entente material aid, in addition to butterflies in the Balkan front, and freeing up Western Entente forces for deployment elsewhere (perhaps to the Balkans) all likely significantly quicken the collapse of Austria-Hungary, and expedite a quicker Entente victory.

You could probably push the envelope for a 1916 victory, if you get Italy to join in earlier on a collapsing Austria-Hungary, overextended on multiple fronts.

 

[phil03]

As pretty much everyone seems to agree that an Entente victory in 1914 is unlikely, when would it be possible?
If the first step is to have French army adopting earlier a defensive position or to push back Germans furthern than IOTL (with Russians doing better on their side), what would allow the victory itself?

And, as it wasn't that much discussed, what would be the political consequences? I suspect Italy would join Entente more likely, but what about Balkans? And an eventual peace treaty : somewhat less harsh as pointed out, but would it be that much conciliant?

By exemple, without american intervention and Russian Revolution, could France or Italy push their exigences further?

As I and another poster pointed out it is easy to make the Marne a far more decisive Allied victories, the russian too could have done far better. It is very unlikely that the allied win in 1914 but they could start 1915 on the verge of victory. In that scenario I could easily see the Italians flying to the rescue of the victors and giving to the central empire the death blow by striking an already weak Austria-Hungary when they needed all their troops on the eastern front.

In the Balkan I personnally see 3 big differences from OTL : a) Serbia slash Yougoslavia is far more powerfull then in OTL, having made most of their OTL gains but to a far less expansive cost, b) Bulgaria will remain somewhat more powerfull then in OTL since they dont have the time to make the mistake of joining the losing side and dont lose their access to the Agean, c) Grece is far less powerfull in the immediate aftermath of the war then in OTL: no annexion of Bulgarian Thracia, no occupation zone in Turkey. The big question mark is Romania: will they manage to grab Transylvannia? That will depend on their entry or no in the war and the survival of the hapsburgs monarchy afterward.

For the peace treaty: I see germany losing around the same amount of territories but they will manage to escape most of OTL reparation witch will allow them to fair far better economicaly.

 

[Riain]

From wikipedia article on the first battle of the Marne: '' By 9 September, it looked as though the German First and Second Armies would be totally encircled and destroyed. General von Moltke suffered a nervous breakdown upon hearing of the danger. His subordinates took over and ordered a general retreat to the Aisne River to regroup. The Germans were pursued by the French and British, although the pace of the Allied advance was slow — a mere 12 mi (19 km) a day. The German armies ceased their retreat after 40 mi (64 km), at a point north of the Aisne River, where they dug in, preparing trenches that were to last for several years.''

Without Moltke subordinates taking over, martial court fear?, you got the whole german army on the western front paralyzed precisely at the moment were the allied were on the verge of encircling the first, and possibly the second too, german army's. Such a move will create a HUGE gap on the northern flank of the whole german front and may lead to his destruction, giving the allied a free ride threw northern France and Belgium, strait to the Rhine.

At the very least it will force the german to retreat deeply, probably out of France at least, witch, in return will make the allied less likely to order OTL frontal attacks and more likely adopt a more defensive strategy, freeing soldier for the others theaters.

http://www.canadaatwar.ca/forums/showthread.php?p=7647
Here is a great series of maps of the initial offensive through Belgium and France that show the situation developing. Considering the movements if the 2 French armies and the BEF I think fears of encirclement were a touch premature, Moltke's fears were a result of his isolation and lack of control over the battle.

 

[Lord Malikai]

A different commander for a single division will lead to the defeat of at least one and possibly 2 German armies that IOTL were the strongest and most successful?

Sorry, I left that vague. Lieutenant General James Grierson was supposed to command the II Corps of the BEF but died tragically of a heart aneurysm before the fighting really started. His importance was two fold. Firstly just in terms of generalship his performance in the Army Manoeuvres of 1912 showed that he was possibly the best commander in the British Army at the start if the war. His replacement in command of II Corps, Horace Smith-Dorrien, was sub par. In terms of quantifiable effects, II Corps was the BEF rearguard for the Retreat from Mons. Now the II Corps performed well here, but under Grierson, II Corps in all likelihood would've performed even better, reducing British casualties and damaging German 1st Army more than OTL.

The second way in which Grierson was important is less quantifiable but could, I believe, have serious ramifications. Throughout the First Battle of the Marne, the BEF coordinated poorly with the French Army and the commanders of the BEF didn't get along very well. In particular John French disliked Smith-Dorrien and French also came to dislike the commander of French 5th Army, General Lanzerac. After overestimating his capabilities at the beginning of the War, French quickly became cautious in the face of the German advance. Now inserting Grierson into this position would change a lot. On a personal level he was good friends with both Haig and French which would eliminate friction there. He was fluent in French and had in the past shown a respect for and sensible use of intelligence. This suggests Grierson could help avoid some of French's more damaging moves, such as pulling the BEF out of line until French's envoy had personally viewed the French 5th Army's position after the Battle of Guise. Basically with Grierson in the picture the BEF is able to operate with generally less friction both internally and with her French allies. Over the course of the campaign Grierson's presence will increase German casualties, but most importantly during the 8-9 September counter offensive, a faster moving BEF coordinating more closely with the French 5th Army should be able to actually trap the German 1st Army, as opposed to nearly doing so OTL. Basically, James Grierson was an excellent general, possessing a strong relationship with both Haig and French, and his premature death robbed the BEF of both its most skilled commander and the one man respected and liked by the other British commanders.

Edit: And I've taken so long to post this that it's a bit removed from the discussion, sorry.

 

[phil03]

http://www.canadaatwar.ca/forums/showthread.php?p=7647
Here is a great series of maps of the initial offensive through Belgium and France that show the situation developing. Considering the movements if the 2 French armies and the BEF I think fears of encirclement were a touch premature, Moltke's fears were a result of his isolation and lack of control over the battle.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/maps/graphics/maps_12_marne1914_6_(1600).jpg

I tend to disagree: on the 9th of September, not only the second german army of Bullow was on the verge of being flanked by the fifth french army of Franchet-D'Esperey, but there was litteraly nothing in the way between the BEF and the rear of the first army of Von Kluck who, since they were attacked on their front by the french 6th army of Maunoury, were in danger of imminent encirclement. The following destruction of Von Kluck army will have forced the german to retreat for a long a while to prevent the allied from outflanking half of the german front in the following weeks.

 

[Riain]

Sorry, I left that vague. Lieutenant General James Grierson was supposed to command the II Corps of the BEF but died tragically of a heart aneurysm before the fighting really started. His importance was two fold. Firstly just in terms of generalship his performance in the Army Manoeuvres of 1912 showed that he was possibly the best commander in the British Army at the start if the war. His replacement in command of II Corps, Horace Smith-Dorrien, was sub par. In terms of quantifiable effects, II Corps was the BEF rearguard for the Retreat from Mons. Now the II Corps performed well here, but under Grierson, II Corps in all likelihood would've performed even better, reducing British casualties and damaging German 1st Army more than OTL.

The second way in which Grierson was important is less quantifiable but could, I believe, have serious ramifications. Throughout the First Battle of the Marne, the BEF coordinated poorly with the French Army and the commanders of the BEF didn't get along very well. In particular John French disliked Smith-Dorrien and French also came to dislike the commander of French 5th Army, General Lanzerac. After overestimating his capabilities at the beginning of the War, French quickly became cautious in the face of the German advance. Now inserting Grierson into this position would change a lot. On a personal level he was good friends with both Haig and French which would eliminate friction there. He was fluent in French and had in the past shown a respect for and sensible use of intelligence. This suggests Grierson could help avoid some of French's more damaging moves, such as pulling the BEF out of line until French's envoy had personally viewed the French 5th Army's position after the Battle of Guise. Basically with Grierson in the picture the BEF is able to operate with generally less friction both internally and with her French allies. Over the course of the campaign Grierson's presence will increase German casualties, but most importantly during the 8-9 September counter offensive, a faster moving BEF coordinating more closely with the French 5th Army should be able to actually trap the German 1st Army, as opposed to nearly doing so OTL. Basically, James Grierson was an excellent general, possessing a strong relationship with both Haig and French, and his premature death robbed the BEF of both its most skilled commander and the one man respected and liked by the other British commanders.

Edit: And I've taken so long to post this that it's a bit removed from the discussion, sorry.

That's asking a lot from a single divisional commander, one of 5 increasing to 8 by 10 Sep. Perhaps if he was on French's staff he might be able to do all that liaison and influencing, but otherwise he'd be busy enough commanding his division.

 

[Lord Malikai]

That's asking a lot from a single divisional commander, one of 5 increasing to 8 by 10 Sep. Perhaps if he was on French's staff he might be able to do all that liaison and influencing, but otherwise he'd be busy enough commanding his division.

Grierson was one of three Corps commanders, and the Corps doing most of the fighting to boot. I think he'd have wielded quite a bit of influence on French's thinking. If anyone were to spur the BEF into advancing more aggressively on the 9 September it would've been him.

 

[Riain]

Sorry, I misread II Corps as II Division, and wondered why the names weren't making sense. A Corps commander is a bit better but it's still asking a lot of a single Corps commander, Von Kluck alone had 6 Corps in his Army.

 

[phil03]

Sorry, I left that vague. Lieutenant General James Grierson was supposed to command the II Corps of the BEF but died tragically of a heart aneurysm before the fighting really started. His importance was two fold. Firstly just in terms of generalship his performance in the Army Manoeuvres of 1912 showed that he was possibly the best commander in the British Army at the start if the war. His replacement in command of II Corps, Horace Smith-Dorrien, was sub par. In terms of quantifiable effects, II Corps was the BEF rearguard for the Retreat from Mons. Now the II Corps performed well here, but under Grierson, II Corps in all likelihood would've performed even better, reducing British casualties and damaging German 1st Army more than OTL.

The second way in which Grierson was important is less quantifiable but could, I believe, have serious ramifications. Throughout the First Battle of the Marne, the BEF coordinated poorly with the French Army and the commanders of the BEF didn't get along very well. In particular John French disliked Smith-Dorrien and French also came to dislike the commander of French 5th Army, General Lanzerac. After overestimating his capabilities at the beginning of the War, French quickly became cautious in the face of the German advance. Now inserting Grierson into this position would change a lot. On a personal level he was good friends with both Haig and French which would eliminate friction there. He was fluent in French and had in the past shown a respect for and sensible use of intelligence. This suggests Grierson could help avoid some of French's more damaging moves, such as pulling the BEF out of line until French's envoy had personally viewed the French 5th Army's position after the Battle of Guise. Basically with Grierson in the picture the BEF is able to operate with generally less friction both internally and with her French allies. Over the course of the campaign Grierson's presence will increase German casualties, but most importantly during the 8-9 September counter offensive, a faster moving BEF coordinating more closely with the French 5th Army should be able to actually trap the German 1st Army, as opposed to nearly doing so OTL. Basically, James Grierson was an excellent general, possessing a strong relationship with both Haig and French, and his premature death robbed the BEF of both its most skilled commander and the one man respected and liked by the other British commanders.

Edit: And I've taken so long to post this that it's a bit removed from the discussion, sorry.

I think our two POD could easily combine: a more daring BEF and a more disorganised german high command to make a more decisive battle.

 

[Riain]

http://www.firstworldwar.com/maps/graphics/maps_12_marne1914_6_(1600).jpg

I tend to disagree: on the 9th of September, not only the second german army of Bullow was on the verge of being flanked by the fifth french army of Franchet-D'Esperey, but there was litteraly nothing in the way between the BEF and the rear of the first army of Von Kluck who, since they were attacked on their front by the french 6th army of Maunoury, were in danger of imminent encirclement. The following destruction of Von Kluck army will have forced the german to retreat for a long a while to prevent the allied from outflanking half of the german front in the following weeks.

Bulow was doing a pirouette, withdrawing from D'Espery while simultaneously advancing against Foch. If D'Espery got too successful the pirouette could stop and Bulow could redeploy his Corps from left to the threatened right.

Kluck would out on a limb, but the BEF wasn't resisting him the way there were earlier at Mons and Le Cateau. Nor was Manoury commanding the most powerful Army going around, 4 of his 8 divisions were reserves (all of D'Espery's 11 divisions were regulars).

All of this doesn't add up to the destruction of 1. and 2. German Armies.

Not that the Entente couldn't do better, they most certainly could, but I don't believe that more of the same is going to do much more than give a slightly better result with Germany occupying a bit less of France. If you really want to cut years off the war something more inventive and drastic needs to be done, like putting large number of good troops on the German flank or somesuch.

 

[phil03]

Bulow was doing a pirouette, withdrawing from D'Espery while simultaneously advancing against Foch. If D'Espery got too successful the pirouette could stop and Bulow could redeploy his Corps from left to the threatened right.

Kluck would out on a limb, but the BEF wasn't resisting him the way there were earlier at Mons and Le Cateau. Nor was Manoury commanding the most powerful Army going around, 4 of his 8 divisions were reserves (all of D'Espery's 11 divisions were regulars).

All of this doesn't add up to the destruction of 1. and 2. German Armies.

Not that the Entente couldn't do better, they most certainly could, but I don't believe that more of the same is going to do much more than give a slightly better result with Germany occupying a bit less of France. If you really want to cut years off the war something more inventive and drastic needs to be done, like putting large number of good troops on the German flank or somesuch.

Bulow could, effectively get out of trouble if he retreated quickly, Kluck, on the other hand, was in way worst position: he was isolated from the others german army's was already pinned to Maunoury, there was nothing, between the BEF and the rear of Von Kluck, litteraly nothing. Maunoury army was good enough to keep Kluck in check in OTL, he didnt need to do more in ATL.

After the neutralization of Von Kluck there was no german troops between Bulow and the sea witch should be enhough to get a general german retreat to the sorthest possible lines, the one they started the war on + Luxembourg, aproximatively, if they dont do that they put themselves in danger of a complete encirclement of all their troops on the western front except Loraine.

 

[Lord Malikai]

Riain, I think you're overestimating the ability of armies to maneuver by this point. I remember reading in Joseph Mitchell's Twenty Decisive Battles of the World that by WWI an army corp couldn't deploy and fight on the same day. Just looking at First Marne, it took the Allies nearly two weeks to finally halt the German advance. What I mean to say is that these armies were very slow to change direction. If the BEF is a bit more daring all they need to do is punch forward, while von Kluck has to disengage from Maunoury and change direction to fight out of the pocket he's in. Considering von Kluck couldn't shift to meet French 6th Army's attack with a day's warning I doubt his army can maneuver fast enough to escape the pocket if the BEF advances a bit faster.

 

[phil03]

Riain, I think you're overestimating the ability of armies to maneuver by this point. I remember reading in Joseph Mitchell's Twenty Decisive Battles of the World that by WWI an army corp couldn't deploy and fight on the same day. Just looking at First Marne, it took the Allies nearly two weeks to finally halt the German advance. What I mean to say is that these armies were very slow to change direction. If the BEF is a bit more daring all they need to do is punch forward, while von Kluck has to disengage from Maunoury and change direction to fight out of the pocket he's in. Considering von Kluck couldn't shift to meet French 6th Army's attack with a day's warning I doubt his army can maneuver fast enough to escape the pocket if the BEF advances a bit faster.

This! + if you have the high command of the army in a state of catatonia Von Kluck is done!

 

[Lord Malikai]

This! + if you have the high command of the army in a state of catatonia Von Kluck is done!

I think this is the point where we do a derpy buddy high five while everyone looks on in disgust.

But in all seriousness, assuming the Allies do bag von Kluck's 1st Army, how far back do the Germans fall? I'm tempted to say the Meuse River, since it's the next big one after the Aisne, but that seems like it would be too far.

 

[phil03]

But in all seriousness, assuming the Allies do bag von Kluck's 1st Army, how far back do the Germans fall? I'm tempted to say the Meuse River, since it's the next big one after the Aisne, but that seems like it would be too far.

Honestly I tend to agree with the Meuse. They are, after all, very deeply outflanked after Von Kluck is smashed and they desesparetely need to shorten their front line to prevent a mega encirclement.

 

[Riain]

Before you gents get too carried away with the high fiving it appears you have set rules for 1 and 2 German Army but not applied the same rules to the BEF and 5 French Army. If the Germans can't deploy and fight on the same day neither can the Allies, and if the German command is in chaos so too is the Allied command.

 

[phil03]

Before you gents get too carried away with the high fiving it appears you have set rules for 1 and 2 German Army but not applied the same rules to the BEF and 5 French Army. If the Germans can't deploy and fight on the same day neither can the Allies, and if the German command is in chaos so too is the Allied command.

The BEF didnt need to redeploy, only to advance strait in the breach and the historical sources specificaly said that Moltke was suffering from nervous breakdown and that is subordinates ended up taking the high command over to save the front, having them waithing for Moltke to be back in his normal shape his one of the POD we have already starting discussing, no such problem was reported in the OTL allied High command.

 

[Simon]

Since the decision of who would command which Russian Army was decided nearly on the eve of war it always seemed obvious to me to swap Samsonov with say Nikolai Ruzsky, the commander of the Russian 3rd Army.

Possibly doesn't have to be that late, or can be influenced a bit beforehand. General Georgi Skalon who double-hatted as Governor-General of Warsaw and Commander-in-Chief Warsaw Military District was by most accounts something of an arsehole, verged on militarily incompetent and created a poisonous atmosphere in his command for his own personal political benefit. The Deputy Commander-in-Chief up until 1913 when he requested a transfer due to what he described as the "[that] cesspool of Skalon's court atmosphere" though was one General Aleksei Brusilov. Simply have one of the numerous Polish rebel groups attempts to assassinate him succeed and Brusilov take over, using the intervening year or two to knock the local officers and troops into shape. Deckhand's Rouleau Compresseur uses that as the point of departure. Considering that he was given command of 8th Army at the outbreak of hostilities I don't think it's too farfetched.

I've really always wondered why no one in the Stavka thought giving Rennenkampf and Samsonov neighbouring armies would be a problem considering their history.

If you mean the supposed punch-up that occurred between them during the Russo-Japanese War I'm fairly sure that's been disproved as ever actually happening. That's not to say that they didn't dislike each other but I'm assuming the General Staff thought they would be professionals enough to put personal feelings aside when carrying out their duties.

In the Balkan I personally see 3 big differences from OTL : a) Serbia slash Yugoslavia is far more powerful then in OTL, having made most of their OTL gains but to a far less expansive cost...

They will not however be able to annex the Kingdom of Montenegro as the Russians simply won't stand for it. IIRC Nicholas I was a Russian Field Marshal and declared war in support of Imperial Russia, combine that with the rather questionable legality of the process of his deposition and it's unification with the Kingdom of Serbia when he and the government were out of the country and I can't see it happening.

The big question mark is Romania: will they manage to grab Transylvania? That will depend on their entry or not in the war and the survival of the Hapsburgs monarchy afterward.

I don't see why not. Looking at it from cynical point of view it's effectively using Hungarian territory to buy peace, since the Hungarians are probably either already causing trouble or about to start causing trouble with the forthcoming Ausgleich re-negotiations in 1917 it's relatively painless for Vienna. At least initially, the Hungarian reaction is likely to be interesting. Same to a certain extent with the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria and Duchy of Bukovina that Russia would likely also want as well. Aside from the oilfields and associated refinery that's going to hurt to lose the rest of the two regions were fairly underdeveloped so no real loss, it actually gets rid of a couple of ethnic minorities as well.

Even though they've just been at war I think the Tsar would probably rather have the Habsburgs survive than seeing them deposed and a bunch of new republics appearing considering his personality and beliefs, but he's still going to be looking to get a certain amount of territory out of the deal. Transylvania going to Romania with Russia gaining the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria and the Duchy of Bukovina seems to strike the right balance to me.