France builds forts along its border with Belgium in the pre-WWI era

CaliGuy

Banned
What if, in the pre-WWI era, France would have built forts along its border with Belgium?

Would this have caused Germany to launch a preventative strike on France?

Also, if France would have actually been able to complete this construction, would Germany (and also Austria-Hungary) have been much more cautious about sparking a general European war? After all, if France's border with Belgium becomes fully fortified, then the Schlieffen Plan becomes obsolete.

Any thoughts on all of this?
 
What if, in the pre-WWI era, France would have built forts along its border with Belgium?

Would this have caused Germany to launch a preventative strike on France?

Also, if France would have actually been able to complete this construction, would Germany (and also Austria-Hungary) have been much more cautious about sparking a general European war? After all, if France's border with Belgium becomes fully fortified, then the Schlieffen Plan becomes obsolete.

Any thoughts on all of this?
Not a good strategy.
There were several reasons why the French didn't build Forts along the Belgian border.
Very simply, it means the Germans have a specific area to attack
Therefore the French/British forces could concentrate their forces near Belgium when they did attack
Otherwise Germany might attack anywhere along the border, which means the French forces have to be spread out more
 
Not a good strategy.
There were several reasons why the French didn't build Forts along the Belgian border.
Very simply, it means the Germans have a specific area to attack
Therefore the French/British forces could concentrate their forces near Belgium when they did attack
Otherwise Germany might attack anywhere along the border, which means the French forces have to be spread out more

If being able to know where the enemy attack was is more important than having forts to defend with then the germans would have attacked straight into the Maginot line.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
OP said pre-WW1, not pre-WW2.
From memory there might have been a treaty about it - not sure on that one, I'm afraid.


As for if it had been completed - well, the problem with a fortified border zone to this extent in a pre-WW1 environment is that (by historical accident) the doctrine of attack was strong in the pre-war era, for pretty much everyone. This is because of the way the various wars from the Crimean to the Russo-Japanese had gone, with the side that kept the initiative and kept attacking seeming to have a tendency to win. (A good way to alter this would be for the Japanese economy to go belly-up and force a peace more on Russian terms, as nearly happened.)

The effects of it, however, assuming nothing else changes, would be that the Germans couldn't rely on the Schlieffen Plan to work - it was already a pretty huge ask, expecting to get through a fort zone on the far side of an area of just-captured terrain on top of all that might push it to be too much.

OTOH, the Germans could equally convince themselves that no Britain would mean the French forces would be spread too thin covering the Belgian border as well as the German one. You do need troops somewhere to defend it even if you have fort zones.
 
The forts were part of the Séré de Rivières system build between 1874 and 1914.

Edit:
After 1905 most of the forts along border with Belgium were disarmed or declassed for political and financial reason.
 
Last edited:
If being able to know where the enemy attack was is more important than having forts to defend with then the germans would have attacked straight into the Maginot line.

It matters more for the defender. The attacker is the one who decides where there's a battle, after all. Anyways, if both the French and Belgian frontiers were fortified, then yes, the Germans would probably have attacked the Maginot Line. There'd be no disadvantage relative to the other border.

Anyways, too many people seem to be thinking pre-WWII here. Pre-1914, I don't think openly aligning with France would be too popular in Belgium.
 
The question is what are the French giving up to pay for additional fortifications on their border with Belgium? Weakening fortifications on their other borders? Cutting their Navy? Cutting their mobile forces? Slowing procurement of new weapons? Slowing down colonial expansion?

Money for these forts has to come from somewhere and where matters a lot to the German response
 
Big waste of time, money, and resources, as well as possibly making the Belgians (who has their leadership speaking French) feel a bit put off. Still better than trying to put them at Alsace Lorraine perhaps, as that might make people think Paris had accepted the loss of the reason totally or was preparing to take it back. The first which would go badly with the French public, the second with the German one.
 
If France does build fortresses along the Belgium border or even in that general area it does send the message that France does not take Belgium security seriously, I wonder if with France sending out these signals would Germany try to take advantage and court Belgium as a possible ally in order to at least upset France in a similar way to the Tangier Crisis?
 
France built fortresses after 1870 and kept them until 1910/12 i count 8 major works betweeen Maubege and Lille. The issue is not, building them it's the cost of continually reinforcing them. maubege falls after an ?8 day investment to German super heavy artillery. If you build it proof vs 280mm they build 310 and the gun,rebuild a major fortification race favours the gun.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
If France finds the money (doesn't seem too impossible to me, France was quite "rich", if it would have sacrificed some parts of its huge gold holdings) to fortify its belgian border as thorough as its border towards Lorraine ...

- Franco-Russian Alliance :
  • How "believable" would/could render the russians french commitment to attack in full power, if they seemingly "hide" behind fortifications ?
  • Wouldn't then the russians also invest (even more) in their fortresses, sacrificing some of the OTL gains of military reforms after ther Russo-Japanes war ?
- Germany :
  • Would there even be the famous/infamous Schlieffen-plan but as a short, unimportant study of how unfeasable an attack through the low countries would be ?
  • Would'nt there be an even earlier and larger (compared to other armies) commitment to heavy and superheavy artillery then ?
  • Wouldn't there be a much stronger thrust to develop an "East-First" strategy ?
- Overall :
  • wouldn't this lead to a strong damper to offensive strategical doctrines everywhere (first France, then Russia, in reaction Germany, then ... the rest) ?
 
If France finds the money (doesn't seem too impossible to me, France was quite "rich", if it would have sacrificed some parts of its huge gold holdings) to fortify its belgian border as thorough as its border towards Lorraine ...

- Franco-Russian Alliance :
  • How "believable" would/could render the russians french commitment to attack in full power, if they seemingly "hide" behind fortifications ?
  • Wouldn't then the russians also invest (even more) in their fortresses, sacrificing some of the OTL gains of military reforms after ther Russo-Japanes war ?
- Germany :
  • Would there even be the famous/infamous Schlieffen-plan but as a short, unimportant study of how unfeasable an attack through the low countries would be ?
  • Would'nt there be an even earlier and larger (compared to other armies) commitment to heavy and superheavy artillery then ?
  • Wouldn't there be a much stronger thrust to develop an "East-First" strategy ?
- Overall :
  • wouldn't this lead to a strong damper to offensive strategical doctrines everywhere (first France, then Russia, in reaction Germany, then ... the rest) ?

Could this single event have butterflied away WWI if European political and military leaders realised they wouldn't be able to score a quick, offensive victory?
 

Deleted member 94680

Could this single event have butterflied away WWI if European political and military leaders realised they wouldn't be able to score a quick, offensive victory?

You would need the Russians to build a string of impenetrable fortresses as well, otherwise the German plan would be "attack Russia first, force the French to sally forth to relieve pressure on the Russians, destroy the French on the counteroffensive and march unopposed to Paris". The Russians don't have the money (or the will, they thought their existing fortresses were perfectly adequate) to do their part.

Also, I'm not sure Franco-Russian fortress mania would affect Serbian or Austrian foreign policy either.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Could this single event have butterflied away WWI if European political and military leaders realised they wouldn't be able to score a quick, offensive victory?
Nnnnot entirely, IMHO.
Though more weight of defensiv doctrines on the Entente side might have helped to ... "localize" the war, given Sarajevo and the July-crisis still happens as IOTL.

For the russians : IOTL they invested heavily in fortress guns, several times what they invested in field guns (it's somewhere in Norman Stone "The Eastern Front", just don't have the time right now to look up the exact numbers).
And it put quite a strain on their military budget. A strain, that kept them to quite some away from upgrading the building substance of their fortresses. Only Ossowiezc and NovoGeorgievsk bot some upgrade on their buildings, not Ostrolenka, Lomza and Pultusk and esp. not Ivangorod (made mainly from bricks).
Even if they would have found the money to improve their existing fortresses, there most likely wouldn't have been enough for new ones, esp. along the Vistula, not to speak of the galizian border

And the germans : Well, WHEN France started to build its fortresses, Moltke the Elder advised, asked about it :
"Don't build fortresses, build railways."
Therefore I tend to the possibility, that the offensive option - as laid out by @Stenz - would be kept on the list. IF Colmar von der Goltz might follow at some point, there might be a strong voice for fortresses AND railways. :biggrin: Though he still was a advocate of strategic offense, even (or esp. ?) out of tactical defense.

However. With france building the mentioned fortresses, its own hyper-offensiveness might dwindle enough for ... well not doing too much in favor of the russians.

Another question would be how Hötzendorf might develop under a prevailance of defensive doctrine. Would he still become CinC of A-H ?
 

Anderman

Donor
This came up a few times on this board and there were several problems mentioned.
First that the water table in this region made the building of fortesses quite difficult and that this line
of fortresses has to be build through frances most industrialized regions.
And sure if this is true or not.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The question is what are the French giving up to pay for additional fortifications on their border with Belgium? Weakening fortifications on their other borders? Cutting their Navy? Cutting their mobile forces? Slowing procurement of new weapons? Slowing down colonial expansion?

Money for these forts has to come from somewhere and where matters a lot to the German response
Cutting their navy might seem plausible, no? After all, if Britain can be relied upon to protect France's interests, France might not need a large navy of its own.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
This came up a few times on this board and there were several problems mentioned.
First that the water table in this region made the building of fortesses quite difficult and that this line
of fortresses has to be build through frances most industrialized regions.
And sure if this is true or not.
Can you please elaborate on the water table part here?


You would need the Russians to build a string of impenetrable fortresses as well, otherwise the German plan would be "attack Russia first, force the French to sally forth to relieve pressure on the Russians, destroy the French on the counteroffensive and march unopposed to Paris". The Russians don't have the money (or the will, they thought their existing fortresses were perfectly adequate) to do their part.

Also, I'm not sure Franco-Russian fortress mania would affect Serbian or Austrian foreign policy either.
Do you mean encircle the French after the French penetrate Alsace-Lorraine?
 
Top