Falkenhayn's Spring Offensive
- Thread starter maru.777
- Start date
It’s a bit of a question what “winning Verdun” means? Verdun was an attempt to induce greater attrition on the French than the Germans by seizing an area that the French would have to retake and make use of the considerable defensive advantage in this period. Assuming that you can get the local German commanders to ignore their desire to fight a battle of annihilation, what casualty ratio constitutes a win? And for how long do you keep it going?
The answers to these questions would help determine the situation going forward and when and if a spring offensive would be likely to happen. For starters, Falkenhayn’s plan was that he could cause the French to exhaust their reserves entirely, defeat an expected British relief attack, and then, if France did not capitulate, launch an offensive near Arras. From your description that has not happened. But the Eastern Front seems to have been concluded earlier than OTL in spite of Falkenhayn’s greater focus on the west.
The answers to these questions would help determine the situation going forward and when and if a spring offensive would be likely to happen. For starters, Falkenhayn’s plan was that he could cause the French to exhaust their reserves entirely, defeat an expected British relief attack, and then, if France did not capitulate, launch an offensive near Arras. From your description that has not happened. But the Eastern Front seems to have been concluded earlier than OTL in spite of Falkenhayn’s greater focus on the west.
Last edited:
The Germans captured the city in August after taking Fort Souville in July
Ok. Then what? Capturing Verdun on its own doesn’t do that much for the German Army. They need to force the French to come to them and hold a favourable (preferably very favourable) loss rate for a long period of time. Then they need to defeat (again, hopefully with a favourable loss ratio) the expected British relief attack.
Falkenhayn wasn’t trying to win by taking Verdun (though there have been some historians who have disagreed), he was trying to win by inflicting unsustainable attrition on the French without suffering it himself. By August 31st French casualties -are estimated at 315,000 compared to 281,000 German. A 1:1.1 loss ratio. Not the 2:5 ratio Falkenhayn thought acceptable and that German intelligence thought was being inflicted. The Somme and Brusilov Offensive are both underway and hitting the CP hard. So troops will still need to be diverted to other fronts. And the French may still be able to push back and retake much of what is lost. So in many ways not much has changed compared to OTL.
In this Scenario, Falkenhayn still seems unlikely to keep his job. Taking another Fort doesn’t seem like it would be enough to save him.
They took the city in August while I agree it wasnt the objective, Falkenhayn uses it to safe face and managed ro get credit for Romania and keep his jobs a few more months which leads to no USW and no Hindenburg Peogramm he is credited with the Kerenskt Offensive and later the Bolshevik Revolution with all that i dont think he'd lose his job
Ironically the US joining might be better, given that caused the muttinees in May 1917. Falkenhayn disregarded the Americans many times in his letters to Bethman-Hollweg.
He was pro USW though, he saw it as an extension of his "attrition" strategy in Verdun. The Kaiser and the chancellor were against it, if anything a successiful Falkenhayn might start USW(i think he originally wanted it in Spring 1916) earlier.
"7) The navy (Admiral von Holtzendorff) assures us that with submarine warfare we will be able to hurt England so badly that within four months, or perhaps a few more, she will give in.
8) America will break with us diplomatically, but it will not declare war on us. Even if it did declare war on us, the military damage it could do to us is not very substantial. Financially and otherwise America already treats us like an enemy."
Alright, I will take note of that, the US joins but theyre not able to do muchz
Alright. Personally I doubt taking more of Versun would be enough to keep Falkenhayn in his position, but let’s assume that is what happens.
I am not sure Romania could be spun to be a Falkenhayn victory while his focus is in the west, since as Chief of Staff he would not be leading those troops himself.
As mentioned above, Falkenhayn was for USW so you are unlikely to avoid that. You may indeed bring it in earlier. Though you may avoid the worst of the Hindenburg program I don’t know enough of the comparative economic situation to say how much better that leaves Germany.
That was Falkenhayn’s belief, not really the reality. If USW begins earlier, the US likely joins the war a few months earlier as well. And since USW is unlikely to actually cause a British collapse in 4 months, American entry is going to be a factor.
To be honest I think we are well ahead of ourselves to be talking about Georg or Georgette. Before we get there we probably need to consider 1917. As it stands the facts on the ground probably keep 1916 looking much like OTL. Falkenhayn is still forced to divert troops to deal with the Somme and the Brusilov offensive which most likely gives the French the chance to take back much of Verdun through the rest of the year. This may take longer and cost more since the Germans have taken more ground, but likely most of it plays out as OTL. The question is what would Falkenhayn do in 1917?
If he, as Ludendorff and Hindenburg did, expects Britain to fall to starvation in months then a withdrawal to a more defensible position of the Siegfried line in advance of the planned Nivelle Offensive makes sense, as the Germans just need to wait them out. If not however, then Germany will either need to wether the offensives with 40 km more front to defend and 13 or 14 fewer divisions in reserve, or they need to launch a spoiling offensive. The former means the Nivelle offensives may find greater success (though are still fairly flawed and probably not war winning), while the latter probably requires a significant drawback in the East to make viable.
I belive the main reason Falkenhayn got fired was becuse of Brusilov and specoally Romenia, who Falkanhayn insisted to both the Kaiser and the Chancellor would not join the war. Romania joining also directly helped cause the Turnips Winter. IMO what the OP wants can be caused by simply changjng that Romenia doesn't join the war, maybe Brusilov fails.
arrestedcorn
Banned
A German victory at Verdun (I will presume a victory means a favorable kill ratio, so France loses lot more men than the Germans) would make there be less french forces available for the Somme, which would have big consequences. I'll presume that Somme still happens as real life. With lesser forces available, it would be an unmitigated disaster. A victory at Somme & Verdun would cause morale to plummet, and mutinies could happen sooner. Hard to tell if Germany can win the war itself though.