AHC: Have the Schlieffen Plan Succeed in WWI & Have Germany Lose WWI Afterwards

CaliGuy

Banned
Here is an Alternate History Challenge for you: Have the Schlieffen Plan *succeed* in World War I *and* have Germany lose World War I afterwards.

Basically, what I am thinking of is actually a bit similar to what occurred in World War II in our TL: To elaborate on this, Germany quickly defeated France (albeit (*unlike* in World War I) with Russia/the Soviet Union being neutral at that point in time) and then sent most of its military forces to the East and invaded Russia (the Soviet Union). After some initial military successes, Germany's Russian campaign ultimately failed to achieve its objective and Russia (the Soviet Union) began pushing Germany back. Eventually, Britain and the U.S. (which has by now entered World War II on the Anglo-Russian side) successfully invaded North Africa, then Sicily, then Southern Italy, and then France in both Normandy and in the south (in 1944), thus recreating the Western Front that essentially disappeared in 1940. Afterwards, Russia (the Soviet Union), Britain, and the U.S. were able to finish off Germany and to conquer Berlin (and most of Germany along the way, obviously).

Indeed, how exactly do you *realistically* achieve such an (ultimate) outcome in World War I *with* a successful Schlieffen Plan?

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Also, for the record, the PoD (from our TL) for this TL is 1872 or later.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
For the record, scenarios where the Entente holds a pocket of French territory (such as, say, Normandy) after Paris and most of France fall to the Germans don't count for this.
 
If Germany gets the French to quit, this also means Belgium throws in the sponge and British forces leave the continent. All Britain can do is use naval force to blockade Germany, but now this means blockading/intercepting all traffic to neutral countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and France. Since pretty much everything, including food was "contraband" this is a huge task. Don't forget that stuff can go via Spain, Italy, Greece, the Ottoman Empire (I would posit a quick Schlieffen victory does not bring in the Ottomans) both imported and of course "local"products. This is untenable. Britain can't do it, and the net is so wide you'd have to include US flagged ships and that the USA ITTL would not stand for.

In WWI Germany was not out to take over all of Russia at least to the Urals, and either kill or enslave its inhabitants. Some expansion of German territory, probably subordinate "kingdoms" in Poland, Baltics, Ukraine, Finland an independent ally. Austria-Hungary takes a bite as well. In 1914 Russia can't keep Germany from going as far east as they would want to and the Germany of 1914 is not going to be crazy like the Germany of WWII. If Russia is fighting Germany and A-H on their own they cannot beat them, it is only a question of when they sue for peace and/or the regime collapses. OTL the only reason Kerensky kept fighting was because of Allied pressure, here in 1914/1915 the Tsar WILL make peace even if it is like Brest-Litovsk.

Between the French surrender and the Russian collapse could the UK have landed a force on the continent. Maybe, but the technology and doctrine for amphibious warfare wasn't there yet (see Gallipoli) and with France disarmed the British by themselves could never land and support a field army large enough to beat the Germans.
 
In WWI Germany was not out to take over all of Russia at least to the Urals, and either kill or enslave its inhabitants.

I think this will make all the difference, particularly given the war will essentially be won in 1915 with pre-war institutions. The motivation to conquer, occupy and dismember Germany won't be there in order for the British and US to undertake the phenomenal effort of rising over 241 divisions required to even think of trying it.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If Germany gets the French to quit, this also means Belgium throws in the sponge and British forces leave the continent. All Britain can do is use naval force to blockade Germany, but now this means blockading/intercepting all traffic to neutral countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and France. Since pretty much everything, including food was "contraband" this is a huge task. Don't forget that stuff can go via Spain, Italy, Greece, the Ottoman Empire (I would posit a quick Schlieffen victory does not bring in the Ottomans) both imported and of course "local"products. This is untenable. Britain can't do it, and the net is so wide you'd have to include US flagged ships and that the USA ITTL would not stand for.

In WWI Germany was not out to take over all of Russia at least to the Urals, and either kill or enslave its inhabitants. Some expansion of German territory, probably subordinate "kingdoms" in Poland, Baltics, Ukraine, Finland an independent ally. Austria-Hungary takes a bite as well. In 1914 Russia can't keep Germany from going as far east as they would want to and the Germany of 1914 is not going to be crazy like the Germany of WWII. If Russia is fighting Germany and A-H on their own they cannot beat them, it is only a question of when they sue for peace and/or the regime collapses. OTL the only reason Kerensky kept fighting was because of Allied pressure, here in 1914/1915 the Tsar WILL make peace even if it is like Brest-Litovsk.

Between the French surrender and the Russian collapse could the UK have landed a force on the continent. Maybe, but the technology and doctrine for amphibious warfare wasn't there yet (see Gallipoli) and with France disarmed the British by themselves could never land and support a field army large enough to beat the Germans.
Question--can't the Russians try retreating to the interior of their territory, hope that the Germans take the bait and overextend themselves, and then try encircling the Germans? Indeed, couldn't Russia maintain such a strategy until the Germans actually capture Moscow?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I think this will make all the difference, particularly given the war will essentially be won in 1915 with pre-war institutions. The motivation to conquer, occupy and dismember Germany won't be there in order for the British and US to undertake the phenomenal effort of rising over 241 divisions required to even think of trying it.
Frankly, what I am curious about is if Russia would have any hope of successfully holding out (by retreating, retreating, and retreating) until Britain and the U.S. are able to try launching an amphibious invasion of France. Overall, though, I doubt it.
 
It could well be the Schlieffen plan succeeds militarily but not politically, I.e. Paris is taken but France doesn't surrender. In which case there will be many French attempts at relieving Paris and cutting it off. The French army might actually manage that if the German army is overextended badly enough in France. At which point, you get OTL WWI but with more losses on both sides from the get-go
 

Insider

Banned
The closest we can get is probably some variation of "Blunted sickle" scenario. Germans successfully take Paris, but are overextended and quickly cut off by French counter attack.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
It could well be the Schlieffen plan succeeds militarily but not politically, I.e. Paris is taken but France doesn't surrender. In which case there will be many French attempts at relieving Paris and cutting it off. The French army might actually manage that if the German army is overextended badly enough in France. At which point, you get OTL WWI but with more losses on both sides from the get-go
That doesn't count for this since the Entente still holds some territory in France, though.
 
In 1915 the USA is absolutely positively NOT going to get involved in the war in Europe. The Entente is finished, and neither the UK nor France had borrowed large amounts of money from the USA so that incentive to ensure an Entente victory is gone, and the U-boat campaign has not really been so much. In fact IF the UK is imposing a distant blockade on the continent and interfering with US commerce the USA is likely to be more pissed at the British than the Germans. Furthermore Wilson OTL ran in 1916 as the man who kept us out of the war. In 1915 even the relatively small steps the USA made as part of the "preparedness" movement have not happened and the US Army is small, unequipped for modern warfare, and had a hard enough time getting their act together in spring, 1916 to chase Villa around Mexico. In 1917 when the USA actually entered the war the armaments industry had been ramped up since 1914/15 making goods for the Entente.

ITTL in 1915 the military is completely unprepared for war in Europe with the exception of the US Navy, which would do little ITTL to add to the British needs - the USA had very few ships useful for ASW patrol between the USA/Canada and the UK. The armaments industry would need to expand greatly, and ITTL armaments from France, which were given to US troops when they arrived or designs that were given to US industry won't be available. OTL with the preparedness movement, the industrial expansion in arms, and other factors it was still about 15 months before the first US troops entered combat on the Western Front in a big way. In this scenario I can't see the USA taking less than two years from whenever they decide to join the war to have an adequately trained and armed force.

The UK/Empire simply can't come to conclusions with a Germany that has access to the resources of the continent, without any Allies on the continent. Can Russia retreat and use space? Yes, but the problem is that the Germans won't go any further than they want to, and the Tsarist government has neither the will nor technical ability to move factories from the areas the Germans would occupy like Stalin did. The territory the Germans would take (similar to Brest-Litovsk) contains a great deal of the Russian industry, fertile land, coal production, and other key bits. Absent this the Russians can't carry out, and even Tsar Nicholas is not stupid enough to fail to listen to his advisors when they tell him with France out, they need to make a deal and quickly.

OTL Russia could not defeat Germany (and A-H) when a large part of the German manpower and effort went to the Western Front and the U-boat war, and A-H was involved on the Isonzo front. Russia was receiving material and aid from the UK, France, and eventually the USA and they still could not stop the Germans, even before the political upheavals. I just don't see a way Russia defeats Germany in this scenario nor how the USA would get in the war in 1915.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Also, for the record, the PoD (from our TL) for this TL is 1872 or later.
THIS requirement would usually ask for this thread to be moved to the section : Before 1900.

But as you ask mainly for (as I understand your opening post) a situation and its consequences after 1900
...
We might discuss possible prererquisits necessay in 1914 to fulfill your challange, ... which might be necessarily caused by a PoD prior to 1900.

However, THIS
For the record, scenarios where the Entente holds a pocket of French territory (such as, say, Normandy) after Paris and most of France fall to the Germans don't count for this.
makes your challange IMHO impossible and would even need this question/thread to be moved to ASB-section . :winkytongue:

A successfull "Schlieffen-Plan" WITH french surrender/armistice and consequently kinda "control" of Germany over all of France - at least metropolitan France - would :
  1. keep Italy ffrom joining the Entente, even more possible, that - like Mussolini 1939 - it would join the CP at the last moment to get at least a wee part of the cake ... of France (Corsika, Tunesia, ...)
  2. With now about three-quarters of all german forces (IMO there will be some occupation force left in France in any case, IOTL in the west there were at every point in IOTL at least half of all german forces if not more in the west) the tsarist armies will be beaten much harder in 1915/1916, esp. as ...
  3. there will be all the austrian forces committed to Italy also be in the game to bash down HARD on Russia ...
  4. before it is able to collect the forces and material necessary to launch the Brussilov-offensives and in midth/autumn 1916 you might have an eastern front running from Narva - Polotsk - Bobriusk - Shitomit - Vinnitsa and down the Bug to the Black Sea, maybe "only" along the Dnjestr of from Dorpat
  5. now latest in late 1916 the tsarist or whatever russian goverment there might be now WILL sue for peace facing the german at the "doorstep" to St.Peterburg, the austrian/germans at the "doorstep" to Kiev and desintegration into something that might resemble a Russia of the 15th/16th century.
For your arguement for Russia to "retreat" into its depht eastwards and recover like Stalin did in 1941 :
  1. The imperial Germany and The Kaiser were not Hitler, seeking "living space". They would do as IOTL and set up puppet states all around to keep on the fighting, esp. in Finnland (get on St.Petersburg) and the Ukraine (get ALL THE GRAIN, mining and manufacture centers there)
  2. causing what I have described above under 5. : a Russia reduced to something like that
    RussianEmpire1700.png

  3. Tsarist Russia just didnt have the industrial muscles to quickly rebuild all of its industry in and behind the Ural as in 1941/42, esp. as there most likely will be a quite pissed population right now almost everywhere in its empire
  4. and the tsarist security forces, as brutal it might have been were far from effective as the soviet/stalinist were.
Outlook or a "possible help" from the west
  1. IF Britain is silly enough under these circumstances to keep on with the war there will be now ample CP-forces to fight any Dardanells-like attempt to "come back" on the land fronts in Europe proper. ... not to forget "Paris"-guns now able to shell Britains soil
  2. There will be ample forces to fight off any attempt to "come back" in the Caucasus, Mediterranian, North Africa as well
  3. as said already an effective blockade now will be impossible for Britain, having to cover the Noth Sea, the whole of the Atlantic, Africa and the Mediterrianian
  4. and ... the CP having almost all of Europe, the Balkan, the Caucasus, the middle east to exploit
  5. the US ? ... no need any more for unrestricted Sub-warfare ... no military means to do anything of importance ... the money probably already lent to France gone, to Britain uncertain to be repaid ... a vast CP-block to trade with ... ... what incentive could be there for the Wilsonian US to enter the war now ????


Only way to get something as aked for would require a complete mess up and change of alliances, happenings on the Balkans, politics worldwide ...
all what would butterfly the world we know in 1914 completly away ... and with it a WW I that could resemble anything we know in IOTL.

It would IMHO require a completly isolated Germany, even from A-H, and still mad enough to attack everyone at once, a Russia starting necessary reforms of military, internal politics and economy prior to and without a Russo-Japanese war ...

- kill Bismarck right after the foundation of the German Empire ?
- kill Wilhelm I AND Friedrich III at the same time ?
- kill the Tsar and all/most of the Roamnovs before the change of the century ?

... an anti-german-ASB-wank-fantasy ... but then please place it in the right section.
 
Last edited:
In 1915 even the relatively small steps the USA made as part of the "preparedness" movement have not happened and the US Army is small, unequipped for modern warfare, and had a hard enough time getting their act together in spring, 1916 to chase Villa around Mexico. In 1917 when the USA actually entered the war the armaments industry had been ramped up since 1914/15 making goods for the Entente.

ITTL in 1915 the military is completely unprepared for war in Europe with the exception of the US Navy, which would do little ITTL to add to the British needs - the USA had very few ships useful for ASW

I looked into this a while ago and it's staggering how tiny and administratively unprepared the US was for a major was and how important the Pancho Villa and National Guard mobilisation was for the US. They'd only gone to permanent divisions in 1912 and the 1911 mobilisation of the regular army was a clusterfuck although the 1915 one was much better. The US had designed some modern artillery but as late as 1914 only had 1 regiment with 4 batteries of 4.7" guns and howitzers in service, indeed the regular army only had 6 artillery regiments on strength until 1916 and the NG was woefully underequipped with artillery, crucial given how important artillery was in WW1.

The Preparedness controversy didn't really help, different Secretaries of War had different ideas of what the Army should do, none of which since Stimson was politically palatable so their efforts were wasted.

The USN had a lot of battleships but was highly unbalanced with only a handful of cruisers and less than 50 destroyers in 1914.

All this is really difficult to comprehend after a century of US power, but before the 1916 Defence Act the US was a military pygmy and not going anywhere fast.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I looked into this a while ago and it's staggering how tiny and administratively unprepared the US was for a major was and how important the Pancho Villa and National Guard mobilisation was for the US. They'd only gone to permanent divisions in 1912 and the 1911 mobilisation of the regular army was a clusterfuck although the 1915 one was much better. The US had designed some modern artillery but as late as 1914 only had 1 regiment with 4 batteries of 4.7" guns and howitzers in service, indeed the regular army only had 6 artillery regiments on strength until 1916 and the NG was woefully underequipped with artillery, crucial given how important artillery was in WW1.

The Preparedness controversy didn't really help, different Secretaries of War had different ideas of what the Army should do, none of which since Stimson was politically palatable so their efforts were wasted.

The USN had a lot of battleships but was highly unbalanced with only a handful of cruisers and less than 50 destroyers in 1914.

All this is really difficult to comprehend after a century of US power, but before the 1916 Defence Act the US was a military pygmy and not going anywhere fast.
The beauty of having a robust, industrialized economy is that you can quickly build up your military power from almost scratch, though. :)
 
The beauty of having a robust, industrialized economy is that you can quickly build up your military power from almost scratch, though. :)

Unless its too late, like it was in WW1.

The US didn't use any artillery that it produced in battle in WW1.
 
Germany takes Paris but loses a crap load of men doing it,far more than the French lose.The war dissolves into a war of attrition with the French selling their territory in the Americas to the United States for food and weapons. Having lost to many men in taking Paris the German army collapses first.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Too easy...

POD cluster 1 - Russia actually becomes a steamroller (Alexander III & Witt survive in power to 1914, proposed port and rail connection to the Murman Coast built in the 1890s, development of Russian Navy neglected, enlightened foreign policy in respect of Japan and the Ottomans, earlier and "better" army reforms, avoid Russo-Japanese war). With a vaguely competent army, a stronger economy, better infrastructure and industry - the Russians crush the Germans in East Prussia and overwhelm the Austria-Hungary empire. The Schlieffen Plan might be ultimately successful, but France would not have capitulated as easily in 1914 as 1940, so A-H and East Prussia are totally trashed (per OTL occupied territory) before the weight of the German forces can head East.

POD cluster 2 - Around 1910 Alwin Mittasch, Carl Bosch and Fritz Haber are all killed in a tragic chemistry accident. An unexplained increased US militancy, coupled with purported widespread atrocities in relation to the suppression of the French peasants results in the US entering the war in late 1914. The British and Americans immediately become aware of the strategic importance of nitrates and have an effective embargo on strategic materials in place by early 1915. By the start of 1916 the level of nitrates available to Germany would have reached crisis levels. British/US munitions and military equipment (and perhaps even troops) pour into Russia via the Black sea, Murman ports and Trans-Siberian railway.
 
This may not count as an answer to the challenge, but if we stretch the definition of World War a bit, I could see a victorious Germany losing the peace in the 1920s, being slowly overstretched economically and militarily by having to prop up its old allies as they descend into civil war-like situations.

OTL the closure of WWI was followed by series of smaller wars over the carcasses of the former Empires.

ITL you have an already fragile A-H, Ottoman E and rump Russia + the always seething rest-of-the-Balkans. Even with the occupation of the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine by relatively fresh Austro-German troops beyond 1915 or whenever Tsar Russia folds, you've got a sure-fire civil war in Russia afterwards which could spread, and give others 'good ideas'.

It would have to be pretty widespread a civil war wildfire, though, to affect a victorious Germany and even cause a regime change there, but in time I could see Germany needing to pull troops from parts of occupied France, giving an opening for British-US backed 'free French' to go in. An 'invasion creep' of sorts.
 

BooNZ

Banned
For the record, scenarios where the Entente holds a pocket of French territory (such as, say, Normandy) after Paris and most of France fall to the Germans don't count for this.

Loophole! Using one of the variations to the Schlieffen Plan, the Germans cut through the Maastricht Appendix. In the first instance Germany would be focused on finishing off France, then pushing back Russia, by which time you have an alternative Entente foothold on the continent (i.e. the Netherlands).
 
Germany takes Paris but loses a crap load of men doing it,far more than the French lose.The war dissolves into a war of attrition with the French selling their territory in the Americas to the United States for food and weapons. Having lost to many men in taking Paris the German army collapses first.

Trouble is the Germans can't take Paris unless they've knocked out the French field armies first.

The city would have to be conquered street by street, and Germany hasn't the manpower for that as long as it's also fighting the French field armies.
 
Top