Alternate Battle of Lorraine 1914

[C.Z.A.R]

Unfortunately the French never listened to their spy network (if they did they wouldn't have been caught off gard by the attack though Belgium) and if they spent any time looking at Germany rain roads then they also would have known where Germany was going to attack.
Also I'm pretty sure the rain road lines was good enough for what the Germans wanted to do.

No? The French had known that Germany was going to go through Belgium, and their plans of mobilization from OTL show this. The offensive reason of Joffre's planning can be visualized as follows:
A massive German "arm" through Belgium, with the fist going to Paris
A massive French "punch" into the German rear, stunning the attack and destroying it's capabilities

Franco-Russian intelligence always had detailed information on where the Germans put their armies and how they would use them. Russia would be completely prepared for a well-planned German East>West offensive. The only scenario where this is impossible is if the Germans, last second, listening to Wilhelm, shift to the East.

In this scenario, the Germans would be unable to supply all those men and technical problems would be at a height. The decisive "Cannae" blow would be impossible as Russian "Case G" makes it so.

 

[C.Z.A.R]

The Russian estimated far more Germans to be on defense in the East, and that didn't stop the uncoordinated Zerg Rush from OTL.
The ATL, there will be as many Germans defending as the Russians thought there would be, and so, no change in planning to get that steamroller headed to Berlin

The Russian Command certainly wouldn't continue their offensive? The Russians had two different plans, Case A & G.

Case A was designed for the purpose of the main forces in the East being Austrian, and G being for if Germany shifted it's main offensive focus to the East. This means, following Franco-Russian intelligence finding German plans, this would be implemented. A crushing blow to the Russian Army, through this scenario, would be impossible until years later or in Galicia.

"But in the event of the main German deployment being in the East (variant G, or Germania) the western frontier districts of Russia, particularly Poland, were initially to be abandoned and the main Russian force was to be assembled in the fortified area north of the Pripet marshes..." - Ritter

 

[ferdi254]

And then the Germans have won the war. Stalemate in the West, Poland in German hands (and assuming the withdrawl goes like OTL 1915 Tannenber is the least result to be expected) no crushing of the Austrian armies in Galicia, much more troops to finish off Serbia in early 1915.

Peace offer from Germany status quo ante in the West, slight border adjustments in the East Serbia is screwed, war over.

 

[kham_coc]

And then the Germans have won the war. Stalemate in the West, Poland in German hands (and assuming the withdrawl goes like OTL 1915 Tannenber is the least result to be expected) no crushing of the Austrian armies in Galicia, much more troops to finish off Serbia in early 1915.

Peace offer from Germany status quo ante in the West, slight border adjustments in the East Serbia is screwed, war over.

Indeed that seems to me the blueprint of what Germany would think of as a quick war.
And consequently what they could have chosen to pursue even if they think the uk is going to join, after all in a short war, the blockade doesn't matter.
and as long as there hasn't been any substantial border changes in the west, wouldn't that be a peace offer that the UK would be perfectly willing to sign up to?
A free poland (Germany wasn't interested in annexing much if anything of poland at this point) and a Serbia that's been chastened, but otherwise intact and no border changes otherwise.

As for the general scenario; Russia started the war, because she lacked the prestige necessary to back down, the war had to be fought to preserve Russian standing as a great power - Consequently, either abandoning all of Poland, or, engaging in the great retreat in 1914 is simply unacceptable and counter productive, it would have been better to loudly denounce Serbia as a terrorist state.
That's ignoring everyone thinking that offense and Elan is the way to victory as is.

 

[cjc]

No? The French had known that Germany was going to go through Belgium, and their plans of mobilization from OTL show this. The offensive reason of Joffre's planning can be visualized as follows:
A massive German "arm" through Belgium, with the fist going to Paris
A massive French "punch" into the German rear, stunning the attack and destroying it's capabilities

Franco-Russian intelligence always had detailed information on where the Germans put their armies and how they would use them. Russia would be completely prepared for a well-planned German East>West offensive. The only scenario where this is impossible is if the Germans, last second, listening to Wilhelm, shift to the East.

In this scenario, the Germans would be unable to supply all those men and technical problems would be at a height. The decisive "Cannae" blow would be impossible as Russian "Case G" makes it so.

That would sertenly be news to Jeffrey considering his plan was interly about a moveing fight in Lorain, and haveing the inter army mobilize on the franco german border is very much not what one wants to do when your expecting a attack though Belgium, seriously we know how this would work because we A) have French plans about what to do if the Germans were attacking though Belgium (hint it had 4 armys on the franco Belgium border) and B) thats exactly what the French army did in ww2 when they did think Germany was going to invade though Belgium (and when the French army really should have stoped listening to there intelligence)

 

[Helmuth48]

And then the Germans have won the war. Stalemate in the West, Poland in German hands (and assuming the withdrawl goes like OTL 1915 Tannenber is the least result to be expected) no crushing of the Austrian armies in Galicia, much more troops to finish off Serbia in early 1915.

Peace offer from Germany status quo ante in the West, slight border adjustments in the East Serbia is screwed, war over.

I hope Russia is wise enough to accept this peace offer, but I have my doubts.

 

[NoMommsen]

...
Franco-Russian intelligence always had detailed information ...

Can you provide any contemporary or at least of contemporaries evidence/source for this allegation ?

 

[Tibi088]

I saw some discussion over whether or not the Russians had capability to bring "Case-G" as a mobilization schedule & war-plan. To this, I'd like to say that Franco-Russian intelligence had full ability to know if the Germans were going West or East, and exactly where and how the Austrians would conduct the war. Russian agents such as Alfred Redl had full access to many major war-plans, and these would immediately go to the Stavka. Furthermore, as seen in previous points, the German railway situation in Great Prussia was unfavorable and would need build-up, which, if done in peace-time, would only reinforce this point more. (Don't slaughter me I'm new to this)

Russia had information about Austria - not Germany. Austria did not know the german plans - nor Germany the austrian one's.

And I would like to stress again that the staff talks and agreements between France and Russia about simultaneous attack against Geremany actually took place at a time when Germany still had an East first war plan option. The Franco-russian early war is painted by many here as a reaction and an answer to the Schlieffen plan. The problem is that if the war started in lets say 1912 Germany could have opted for an East first plan as it still existed - and Russia and France still would have been committed to attack on the same day of mobilization as OTL because they already agreed to do that. Because the point of the simultaneous attack was to negate Germany's adventage of its central position not specifically the Schlieffen plan.

 

[C.Z.A.R]

That would sertenly be news to Jeffrey considering his plan was interly about a moveing fight in Lorain, and haveing the inter army mobilize on the franco german border is very much not what one wants to do when your expecting a attack though Belgium, seriously we know how this would work because we A) have French plans about what to do if the Germans were attacking though Belgium (hint it had 4 armys on the franco Belgium border) and B) thats exactly what the French army did in ww2 when they did think Germany was going to invade though Belgium (and when the French army really should have stoped listening to there intelligence)

A stunning attack was to immobilize German columns after they went through the Belgian gap further north. The Fifth Army was deployed under Lanrezac (I BELIEVE, NOT 100% SURE) in the Luxembourg-Belgium area in anticipation to reinforce this point. Furthermore, that "plan" is probably the one Victor-Constant Michel proposed, although you haven't gone into much detail about it.

French command knew there were two options for the German army, which is why Lanrezac was ready to rush through Belgium in the case of German invasion OR if British support was secured, to flank through the Ardennes.

 

[C.Z.A.R]

Russia had information about Austria - not Germany. Austria did not know the german plans - nor Germany the austrian one's.

And I would like to stress again that the staff talks and agreements between France and Russia about simultaneous attack against Geremany actually took place at a time when Germany still had an East first war plan option. The Franco-russian early war is painted by many here as a reaction and an answer to the Schlieffen plan. The problem is that if the war started in lets say 1912 Germany could have opted for an East first plan as it still existed - and Russia and France still would have been committed to attack on the same day of mobilization as OTL because they already agreed to do that. Because the point of the simultaneous attack was to negate Germany's adventage of its central position not specifically the Schlieffen plan.

I'd argue that, as has been stated before (and has been re-asserted by Ritter, Beck, etc.) that the East-First plan would only work under the circumstances of consolidated logistics.

German railway buildup in East Prussia would be a massively alarming factor to both France & Russia, which I would see as a reason for reconvening upon the issue. In the case of a Silesia and (Austrian) Galicia offensive, I'm sure Russian intelligence in the K.u.K would also inspire a reconvening between the two nations. Franco-Russian staff talks were ANNUAL.


" When Russia entered into its alliance with France in 1890 it reckoned—quite rightly at that juncture—that Germany would strike east first, before it turned west. The alliance, therefore, conferred immense benefits on Russia. First, France's ability to draw off Germany enabled it to face Austria-Hungary, to the southwest. " - The First World War (Volume 1: To Arms), Hew Strachan

Even in OTL, Russia sustained it's offensive goals towards Galicia after they agreed to an offensive in the 1901 talks. This means, after intelligence reports by Russian, Austrian and possibly French sources, a Galician offensive is most likely to go in conjunction with Plan XVII.

 

[C.Z.A.R]

Can you provide any contemporary or at least of contemporaries evidence/source for this allegation ?

My main sources are:
Ritter, (The Schiefflen Plan: Critique of a Myth)
Strachan, (The First World War, Volume One: To Arms)
I use other smaller segments from other things but icba to go fetch them.

I don't have any diaries/memoirs from living people to back it, and I don't speak anything but English, but I'm sure the sources I've listed are credible enough.

 

[C.Z.A.R]

And then the Germans have won the war. Stalemate in the West, Poland in German hands (and assuming the withdrawl goes like OTL 1915 Tannenber is the least result to be expected) no crushing of the Austrian armies in Galicia, much more troops to finish off Serbia in early 1915.

Peace offer from Germany status quo ante in the West, slight border adjustments in the East Serbia is screwed, war over.

The withdrawal of OTL would not go the same way, considering the army wouldn't be battered and nearly destroyed by the time of retreat. And, a Galician offensive is still completely possible?

 

[ferdi254]

Does this boil down to

a) two less Russian armies against the AH armies would achieve exactly the same result as OTL and
b) the Russian armies suddenly get competent commanders who are able to improvise and execute improvised plans well?

 

[kham_coc]

The withdrawal of OTL would not go the same way, considering the army wouldn't be battered and nearly destroyed by the time of retreat. And, a Galician offensive is still completely possible?

It would have to retreat prior to being engaged, leaving German field armies free to advance unopposed (Again, the Czar could not sustain that prestige loss) and reinforce Galicia. They either attack as planed, or retreat and marshal in front of the Pripyat marshes - And any crazy idea of trying to hold Poland, while not mobilising in poland would end very badly, and make no sense.

 

[C.Z.A.R]

It would have to retreat prior to being engaged, leaving German field armies free to advance unopposed (Again, the Czar could not sustain that prestige loss) and reinforce Galicia. They either attack as planed, or retreat and marshal in front of the Pripyat marshes - And any crazy idea of trying to hold Poland, while not mobilising in poland would end very badly, and make no sense.

A defensive line from Grodno, Brest & Kovno. Forces will be deployed west-ward to spoil the German attack and to attack Galicia if NEEDED.

 

[C.Z.A.R]

A defensive line from Grodno, Brest & Kovno. Forces will be deployed west-ward to spoil the German attack and to attack Galicia if NEEDED.

Regardless, however, I see a Russian defeat by 1917 due to revolution & a massive summer offensive , with the Germans at the gates of Petrograd HOWEVER;

This doesn't mean that Germany wins. The army would be heavily fatigued/battered as more static warfare would ensue in the East as the Germans only sustain themselves on the active offensive. If the UK was to join, the war would grind down into a stalemate as the Ottomans collapse, Austria divides through issues with the Hungarian Diet, and Germany is desperate to end the war. The war would end in late 1917 with an altered Russian April-crisis, with a peace that is disadvantageous to the Kaiser (which could probably result in his abdication but idk)

I don't truly see any other scenario, and if anyone else has separate proposals I'd love to talk about it.

 

[ferdi254]

The question is why would the UK stay in the war after Russia is beaten (if even that long) as long as Germany offers status quo ante in the West?

 

[Catspoke]

Regardless, however, I see a Russian defeat by 1917 due to revolution & a massive summer offensive , with the Germans at the gates of Petrograd HOWEVER;

This doesn't mean that Germany wins. The army would be heavily fatigued/battered as more static warfare would ensue in the East as the Germans only sustain themselves on the active offensive. If the UK was to join, the war would grind down into a stalemate as the Ottomans collapse, Austria divides through issues with the Hungarian Diet, and Germany is desperate to end the war. The war would end in late 1917 with an altered Russian April-crisis, with a peace that is disadvantageous to the Kaiser (which could probably result in his abdication but idk)

I don't truly see any other scenario, and if anyone else has separate proposals I'd love to talk about it.

German leaders of the time would have to reach similar conclusions to yours on the course of events, or perhaps worse conclusions, since they seemed to overestimate Russian strength OTL. Would they consider a 3 year war of fatigue worth it, with Germany's advanced economy how sure are they Germany wouldn't fatigue first..

On the other hand is France first really worth it either, even if a victory in the west, France is still around, sort of a 1871 situation, Lots of German forces haver been pulled east after 6 weeks, so would settle out into a stalemate condition in the west, the war on Russia would still take a long time, probably until 1917 still.

At least with east first its easier to achieve a compromise peace and the blockade would be looser (Belgium neutral and Britain unable to take as many heavy handed measures on neutral rights with more German sympathy without invading Belgium).

@Rian or somebody pointed out that nobody considered diplomatic/military/war aims as one package in 1914, just tried to win the battles and let the rest settle.

It just seems that war is a crap deal for Germany in 1914 even without hind sight. Poor leadership is present.

In 1914.
1) Germany were in Germany, or in German lead Austria or in Russia where much of the aristocracy had German ties so there is no need to liberate anyone.
2) German economy has a lead in the high tech of the time, Chemicals, Electronics.
3) The German colonies were just starting to get a favorable return in Togo, Samoa, and diamonds had just been discovered in South West Africa. All this would be lost in any war.

It just seems to be best to settle for some British lead peace conference over Serbia, or failing that, do east first which is a lot easier to stop and make a peace whenever.

 

[C.Z.A.R]

German leaders of the time would have to reach similar conclusions to yours on the course of events, or perhaps worse conclusions, since they seemed to overestimate Russian strength OTL. Would they consider a 3 year war of fatigue worth it, with Germany's advanced economy how sure are they Germany wouldn't fatigue first..

On the other hand is France first really worth it either, even if a victory in the west, France is still around, sort of a 1871 situation, Lots of German forces haver been pulled east after 6 weeks, so would settle out into a stalemate condition in the west, the war on Russia would still take a long time, probably until 1917 still.

At least with east first its easier to achieve a compromise peace and the blockade would be looser (Belgium neutral and Britain unable to take as many heavy handed measures on neutral rights with more German sympathy without invading Belgium).

@Rian or somebody pointed out that nobody considered diplomatic/military/war aims as one package in 1914, just tried to win the battles and let the rest settle.

It just seems that war is a crap deal for Germany in 1914 even without hind sight. Poor leadership is present.

In 1914.
1) Germany were in Germany, or in German lead Austria or in Russia where much of the aristocracy had German ties so there is no need to liberate anyone.
2) German economy has a lead in the high tech of the time, Chemicals, Electronics.
3) The German colonies were just starting to get a favorable return in Togo, Samoa, and diamonds had just been discovered in South West Africa. All this would be lost in any war.

It just seems to be best to settle for some British lead peace conference over Serbia, or failing that, do east first which is a lot easier to stop and make a peace whenever.

The East seems logical, however, as said before, it was dismissed as:
1) The Anglo-French were seen as a bigger threat
2) The railway capacity was too low
3) Schlifflen wasn't able to secure his great "Super-Cannae" and quick victory in the area
Germany also had a need for war by 1914, with the Russian Great Armee Programme finishing by 1917 & France rapidly getting stronger (stronger relations with the UK aswell)
France was simply more logical. However, as I've said, I'm open to discussion,

 

[C.Z.A.R]

The question is why would the UK stay in the war after Russia is beaten (if even that long) as long as Germany offers status quo ante in the West?

The balance of power.