First World War without a Western Front stalemate

They didn't develop high demands until later. For the moment it was all about propping up AH and teaching a lesson to the French; once that object is achieved early on annexations are secondary to the peace makers.


What counts as "high demands"? Bethmann-Hollweg announced the "September Programme" on 9 September 1914 (ie well before any French surrender was in sight) and that looks pretty ambitious to me.

They will also have to keep at least the northern part of France under military occupation until they can make peace with Britain, which is probably still quite a long way off. I suspect most Frenchmen will take that as a humiliation no matter how polite the occupiers are.
 
The Germans expected to negotiate a peace settlement, not to dictate one (at least until III. OHL took over); so, the 'Septemberprogramm' is a basis for bargaining (You have to demand much in order to get anything).

And looking at the Entente war aims, it was pretty modest anyway.
 
The Germans expected to negotiate a peace settlement, not to dictate one (at least until III. OHL took over); so, the 'Septemberprogramm' is a basis for bargaining (You have to demand much in order to get anything).

And looking at the Entente war aims, it was pretty modest anyway.


Trouble is, how does a "modest" peace treaty work for Germany?

Russia will go on industrialising, and get steadily stronger. Even if she loses, say, Poland and Lithuania to the Germans, it won't noticeably affect her strength twenty years hence. That will still be lot greater than in 1914. So she fights a war of revenge (which France joins in, of course) and Germany gets squashed.

The way I see it, Germany has boxed herself into a corner. Having got herself into war, she has to not just win it, but win big enough that her enemies won't be a military threat in the foreseeable future. A moderate peace (even moderately in her favour) just won't give her security. She's got herself into a mess where it's a case of "all or nothing". She can't compromise .
 
Russia will go on industrialising, and get steadily stronger. Even if she loses, say, Poland and Lithuania to the Germans, it won't noticeably affect her strength twenty years hence. That will still be lot greater than in 1914. So she fights a war of revenge (which France joins in, of course) and Germany gets squashed.

Whereas it's true that Lithuania and Poland wouldn't do much of a difference for German power, German itself is industrializing further as well. Extrapolating German development in teh same way you do for Russia implies a German population which grows about 20% and German industry growing above that. Note also that Germany at the time was the major supplier of "high tech", which would likely continue. Similar developments can be expected in sciences as well.

Finally, yet most important, Germany was on its way to more democracy. Even if this gets a setback by a quick and successful war, the Germans will still learn their lessons. There will be more non-noble officers in teh military. The three-class voting system in Prussia was about to end anyway. Alsace-Lorraine will get more autonomy. The SPD showed "patriotism". As these developments reduce the influence of the old elites, a new war becomes less likely, whereas Germany gaining more allies becomes more likely.
 
An interesting view of Russian foreign policy is that it switches between East and West as it is defeated, whether diplomatically or militarily, on one front. Thus, after a defeat in the West, Russia is far more likely IMHO to look for opportunities to grow in China, to back central rule in China and seek to reassert its inflluence there

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Deleted member 1487

A Russian loss helps speed along the Russian revolution. While it is important for Germany to 'win big', a long war is not in her favor either. Humiliating the Russians should be enough to get them to slide over the edge into revolution and dissatisfaction with the Tzar. Said revolution will set Russia back considerably. The war will increase her debt, both for expenditures and indemnity, which will all set back Russian development. France won't be able to invest in Russia after the war and Britain IIRC wasn't interested in investing in Russia prewar.

The other question is what Russia will except as a peace deal with France out of the war. Many seem to assume that Russia will fold immediately after France exits the war, but if German demands are not acceptable, the war could go on as Russia waits for Britain to contribute and Germany and Austria-Hungary to tire and negotiate peace. The Russian government realizes what a loss means; they understand that revolution was around the corner before the war increased patriotism and dampened dissatisfaction. By admitting defeat so early in the war Russia might well blame the Tzar for folding so soon, especially if that means losing Poland, Lithuania, and parts of Ukraine while also paying an indemnity.
 
As many have already stated a fluid World War One would have to be a short one.

The tragedy of World War One (apart from happening at all) was that it came at the time when defensive firepower had the ascendancy over the attack.

Machine Guns were coming into their own and inflicting heavy casualties on the traditional frontal mass attack. Brave soldiers, however well trained, needed to cover the ground to get to the machine gunners. If the machine gunners found a half decent position and had the additional protection of riflemen and artillery then they were just too diificult to dislodge without suffering huge losses.

As for the war being relatively bloodless then compared to OTL this would be true but to the people at the end of 1914 the body count would have still looked horrendous and it would have had a psychological impact.

France suffered huge losses in The Battle of the Frontiers. The Germans would also be reflecting on many dead.

By the way I think the only way to get a short war would be through a German victory.

The Entente made more mistakes than the Germans. Too many really. You would need to change too many things such as a more competent Russian performance at Tannenberg (by that I mean a victory) and the French not throwing away so many men on the frontier and holding some troops back to hit the Germans with a heavy counter punch when they're supplies become extended.

If you really want to go wild on an Entente victory you do the Churchillian stuff such as a landing on the Pommeranian coast with the Royal Navy helping to land a large Russian force that marches on Berlin.

Not happening.

Germany could have won on the Marne if they hadn't panicked when the BEF marched in to the gap in their lines.

Churchill wrote that later in the war this kind of thrust wouldn't have worried anyone and the attacking force would have ended up in an over stretched salient that could have been easily cut off and destroyed. But in 1914 armies marching into gaps were scary and the Germans retreated in response to text book orthodoxy.

So you could still get a victory on the Marne and the BEF destroyed!!

Maybe a war winner.

Best

Regards.
 
Germany could have won on the Marne if they hadn't panicked when the BEF marched in to the gap in their lines.

Agreed, with the reservation that winning on the Marne doesn't necessarily end the war.

The French are going to have to make a stand somewhere, and the line from Paris to the Lorraine border is about as good as they'll find anywhere. The only way the Germans can outflank it is by sending an army right round west of Paris (in addition to one facing Paris to keep Gallieni occupied) and as far as I can see they just don't have the troops for that. For my money, the best they can hope for (and this may well be optimistic) is a line roughly similar to that of the BotM, then skirting Paris to the north, and thereafter following the Seine to the Channel. After that things settle down into stalemate - though a stalemate much more favourable to the Germnas.

Churchill wrote that later in the war this kind of thrust wouldn't have worried anyone and the attacking force would have ended up in an over stretched salient that could have been easily cut off and destroyed. But in 1914 armies marching into gaps were scary and the Germans retreated in response to text book orthodoxy.

So you could still get a victory on the Marne and the BEF destroyed!!

Theoretically, but Sir John French had already had a couple of bloody noses at Mons and Le Cateau, hence his caution. He moved slowly because he feared precisely the kind of trap you suggest. After his previous experience, this inviting gap smelt too much of "Will you come into my parlour?" The first hint of such a thing and he'd have retreated post haste.
 
Last edited:

NothingNow

Banned
The way I see it, Germany has boxed herself into a corner. Having got herself into war, she has to not just win it, but win big enough that her enemies won't be a military threat in the foreseeable future. A moderate peace (even moderately in her favour) just won't give her security. She's got herself into a mess where it's a case of "all or nothing". She can't compromise .

No. If she can settle things with Russia, bitch-slap France in to reality, and mend things with Britain (possibly by retiring or selling off some of the HSF), she'll be in a much better position than she was before the war. The First two are fairly easy, the Latter however might be an issue because of the "Incidents" in Belgium, which could possibly be pawned off as the fault of Junior Officers and Enlisted men who grew up hearing stories about French Partisans on their Father's and Grandfather's Knees, and Horribly over reacted to perfectly innocent things (Which might not be that far from the Truth actually.)
 
No. If she can settle things with Russia, bitch-slap France in to reality, and mend things with Britain (possibly by retiring or selling off some of the HSF), she'll be in a much better position than she was before the war. The First two are fairly easy, the Latter however might be an issue because of the "Incidents" in Belgium,


What does "settle things with Russia" mean?

The Tsar has proclaimed to huge crowds that he'll never make peace while there's a single enemy on Russian soil. If he has to turn round and eat his words only months later, the loss of prestige will finish him. His only choice is to win or to go down fightiing, same as it was for Alexander I in 1812.

As for France, the "bitch slap" is one that leaves Paris a heap of rubble, like Leningrad or Stalingrad in a later war, and half of France under German occupation until such time as they can get a peace with Britain. They won't be reconciled any time soon. It might be different if the war was lost in 1917 or 1918, when the heroic mood has gone sour, but in 1914 it can still be blamed on some unsuccessful general or disloyal ally (guess who) and it will be "if only" this that or the other.

The stuff about retiring or selling off the HSF is pure ASB. They wouldn't agree to that even in peacetime, so the chance of them agreeing to it after a victorious war is nil.
 
Agreed, with the reservation that winning on the Marne doesn'tr necessarily end the war..

True enough. It would then come down to how the French view the future. Do they still think they can win in a reasonable period of time.

In the aftermath of the Marne many of the French seemed to think victory could be achieved fairly soon. They thought the Germans would be demoralized and the Russians were still in East Prussia with dreams of early victory.

This encouraged them to go on the offensive at the Aisne and they were willing to take casualties. Even after the defeat of the Russians and the stalemate by December the French still looked forward to a few more pushes to bring them victory. So they endured!

Would they feel like that after a defeat on the Marne, followed soon after by the news of the destruction of the Russian armies in East Prussia?

Would they think that the strategic position had become hopeless and that winning would be too much of an uphill struggle to even contemplate?

Also what if the BEF had got mauled too? Would the British (at so early a stage) commit to raising a whole new army for a long war.

Kitchener knew it would be a long war but the Britsh people did not. Would not a defeat on the Marne jolt the British people into drawing back from the abyss?

So you can still get a short war if the French and British think that the task will be too great. If they don't think that then you still have a long war.
 
Top