France falls 1914, what happens to Britain

The question is how does Paris fall? One possibility is that Von Bulow keeps up with Von Kluck's first army, taking away the gap that the British were able to exploit in the battle of the Marne. You could also find a way to keep Belgian resistance around Liege a bit less troublesome to defeat. Perhaps some more success killing or capturing French troops before the Marne is also a possibility.

The Marne is the best bet for an early French defeat. The war hadn't bogged down into an endless siege and was still a mobile campaign. I don't see how Paris could withstand a siege after the Marne as the French garrison had all been sent to the front during the battle. (That must have been one large taxi fare). The Race To The Sea in this circumstance would be between the British trying to reach the channel ports and the Germans trying to cut them off.

Without the huge loss of life on the Western Front Europe today would be a very different place. In a sense we are all survivors of that war as our Great Grandfathers were the ones who made it back. Thanks to ideas like the Pals Battalians whole communities in Britain lost a generation in as little as a few days on the Somme. Post war it became impossible for many young women to find husbands due to the losses, and because of the Children who were never born Britain face severe manpower shortages during and after WWII which led to the mass imegration of the 50s and 60s. Something that was repeated in France and to a lesser extent West Germany.


In my opinion the Twentieth Century can be best described as The Great War and its aftershocks.
 
When the Germans approached Paris in late August / early September 1914, the French government was prepared to decamp to Bordeaux, with the very real possibility of Paris being declared an open city (Jules Guesde forestalled that, pointing out that all it would take was one shot from a window in the working class quarter, and Paris would be burned). Presumably, the French government would either try to carry on from Bordeaux even with the loss of Paris, or would use that as an escape port to Algeria.

French morale would likely take a nosedive if Paris were seized, and it's likely IMO that France would sue for peace quickly. Then, I suggest the war in the west goes from hot to cold quickly. Having stomped France, the Germans now have channel ports out of which their ships could operate, which could well give the British pause. The British and Germans would probably glare at each other across the Channel, but apart from the occasional naval sortie, I doubt much of anything would happen. The Germans and British would probably wind up with a negotiated/brokered peace where neither side gives much (OK, Britain may have to give some minor colonies as a penalty for playing on the losing side, but IIRC, the German attitude toward Britain was something along the lines of dealing with the British in the fullness of time after France was neutralized.)

I'm inclined to agree that Italy sits out, and the war in the Balkans plays out as others have described, with Serbia eliminated and perhaps reduced to a Habsburg client state. The Habsburg and Ottoman empires might creak along for another decade or so before the machinery wears out completely; Russia might well collapse as it did in OTL after Brest-Litovsk-like terms (no reason those wouldn't be imposed since in this case Germany was dealing from a position of greater strength).

Assuming this happens and there's no U-boat warfare, the US doesn't get involved. I could see Wilson and the Democrats becoming the party of isolationism, with TR and the Republicans declaiming that some day, sooner or later, there would be a showdown between the US and Germany. Want some real irony? How about a US/Japan understanding in the Pacific, since neither would want the Germans to get any sort of real grip in the area?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I'm inclined to agree that Italy sits out, and the war in the Balkans plays out as others have described, with Serbia eliminated and perhaps reduced to a Habsburg client state. The Habsburg and Ottoman empires might creak along for another decade or so before the machinery wears out completely; Russia might well collapse as it did in OTL after Brest-Litovsk-like terms (no reason those wouldn't be imposed since in this case Germany was dealing from a position of greater strength).

Previous Tsar had made peace treaties such as in the Crimean War. If Germany does well enough, fast enough, the Tsar might actually make peace to fight another day. The Tsar would have to give up Poland, and maybe some of the Baltic states, but a peace treaty with Germany soon after France falls might be acceptable to the Tsar. Of course, it could still be a long war that destroys the Monarchy in Russia.
 
That being said, the loss of Paris really sends the French infrastructure network into crisis, given Paris was essentially the transportation hub around which France (at the very least, Northern France) operated around, which makes the continuation of the French war effort much more difficult.

This.

In WWII, thanks to a more mobile warfare and more street-based transportation, the French would have a far better chance to continue the war from Bordeaux or Algier. Loosing Paris in 1915 means that the Germany rule Northern France. And without northern France, not much of the French industrial capacity is left. Thus you'd have a France that wants to fight on from the South, but has only very limited means to transport the very limited supplies up North.

Not surrendering after such a tremendous loss is a viable option if you're fighting Nazis. Against imperial Germany, though, France would call for an armistice. And Britain would join that after seizing all German colonies to gain some bargaining power.

Considering terms: if there's an early French defeat, the war will end early, and thus German demands will not be that hilarious as IOTL late in the war, and all participating powers will negotiate a peace in good old 19th century manner. Britain will give back the German colonies, maybe go for a treaty limiting German naval buildup, but in any case will get the Germans out of Belgium. Luxemburg might end up a German state, though. In the East, there'll be an "independent" Poland, maybe also Lithuania/Courland, but not more. Austria-Hungary will get a free hand in Serbia, which it doesn't annex. Germany will gain some French colonies or Belgian Congo - but maybe loose some of its Pacific possessions.

All in all, an early German victory doesn't allow for them to be successful enough to dominate Europe. They just get a bit stronger - and bind their enemies closer together for the next round.
 
Please the imperial Germany was no less brutal then the nazi we have several cities that remember them...
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Please the imperial Germany was no less brutal then the nazi we have several cities that remember them...

Incorrect. I don't know how you compare the execution of 11-17 million civilians to the actions of the WW1 Germans. The Nazi are running death camps in Poland, and the Imperial Germans are allowing neutral powers to feed the Poles after the Russians burned the country retreating. And please don't start on Belgium. Belgium in WW1 was Utopia compared to either the Congo in WW1 or the Congo pre-1908. Imperial Germany clearly behaved no worse than the Belgians in the 1900-1920 time frame, and probably are responsible for far fewer deliberate civilian deaths.
 

Hkelukka

Banned
If France falls, either UK goes for peace or it continues. If it chooses to continue it ships the BEF to first taking every german colony, then pushing Ottoman empire to peace, then demobilizing mostly and sending all supplies they can to russia and then ask for either a return to PRE 1914(including returning french and Russian losses) or Germany hands over all colonies to the UK and the UK returns to peace.
 

Hkelukka

Banned
Incorrect. I don't know how you compare the execution of 11-17 million civilians to the actions of the WW1 Germans. The Nazi are running death camps in Poland, and the Imperial Germans are allowing neutral powers to feed the Poles after the Russians burned the country retreating. And please don't start on Belgium. Belgium in WW1 was Utopia compared to either the Congo in WW1 or the Congo pre-1908. Imperial Germany clearly behaved no worse than the Belgians in the 1900-1920 time frame, and probably are responsible for far fewer deliberate civilian deaths.

I'm sure the Native Americans would have a great many things to say about brutality.
 
Incorrect. I don't know how you compare the execution of 11-17 million civilians to the actions of the WW1 Germans. The Nazi are running death camps in Poland, and the Imperial Germans are allowing neutral powers to feed the Poles after the Russians burned the country retreating. And please don't start on Belgium. Belgium in WW1 was Utopia compared to either the Congo in WW1 or the Congo pre-1908. Imperial Germany clearly behaved no worse than the Belgians in the 1900-1920 time frame, and probably are responsible for far fewer deliberate civilian deaths.

Oh look, you're excusing intentional casualties of civilians. How quaint:rolleyes:

"Oh hey, it wasn't AS bad, so that counts for something, right?"

BTW, France under the Nazis was probably treated as badly as Belgium during WW1, even if things in the west never really got close to Eastern European levels. (Unless you were unlucky enough to be a Jew deported under the Vichy regime.)
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Oh look, you're excusing intentional casualties of civilians. How quaint:rolleyes:

"Oh hey, it wasn't AS bad, so that counts for something, right?"

BTW, France under the Nazis was probably treated as badly as Belgium during WW1, even if things in the west never really got close to Eastern European levels. (Unless you were unlucky enough to be a Jew deported under the Vichy regime.)

No, you are misreading what I posted. Xgentis said that Imperial Germany was "No less brutal than (sic) the Nazi". This statement is clearly incorrect. Imperial Germany behaved much better than the Nazi's and to a similar level as the other European countries.

Lets look at intentional civilian casualties in WW1 and the 20 years before. The following list is not complete, but will show how it was not uncommon.

1) Belgium killed over 1 million civilians in the Congo before 1908, and over 100,000 in WW1 in the long logistic supply lines.

2) German shot around 6000 in Belgium.

3) British blockade starved between 200,000 and 750,000 Germans to death. The blockade also killed numerous Belgians, Poles and others, but I have not yet found reliable estimates of the dead.

4) Ottomans and about 1.5 million Armenians.

5) Russia burned Poland, but I can't give exact figures on this number who starved because of this action.

Imperial Germany is not even in the top 4 for WW1 civilian casualties. If one added WW2, it would not be in the top 9 (USA, UK, Nazis, Russians, Japanese).

BTW, I am not sure how emotional icons are supposed improve discussions of measurable death tolls, nor do I think the treatment of France by the Nazi somehow makes Imperial Germany as bad as the Nazi's.
 
Oh look, you're excusing intentional casualties of civilians. How quaint:rolleyes:

"Oh hey, it wasn't AS bad, so that counts for something, right?"

BTW, France under the Nazis was probably treated as badly as Belgium during WW1, even if things in the west never really got close to Eastern European levels. (Unless you were unlucky enough to be a Jew deported under the Vichy regime.)

No his (?) entire point was that Imperial Germany wasn't as bad; the disagreement was with the statement that "the Imperial Germany was no less brutal than the nazi". There was no real excusing involved.
 
If Germany knocks out France early in the war they will send more troops East and knock out Russia much earlier then OTL and the German government at the time wasn't stupid enough to repeat the French Emperor's mistake a century before of going too deep into Russia over doing their supply lines and not being ready for the winter. Nor were they blinded from military reality by utterly moronic racial theories as the National Socialists later were.

After there is peace with Russia and Germany's other land foes in Europe German industry will be greatly improved, it will have food coming in from the East earlier and it will be able to focus on its Navy on fighting the British. The war likely ends after a few years after it starts with peace between the UK and Germany.

WW2 becomes unlikely in Europe unless Imperial Germany decides it wants to finish the British off two or three decades later. If WW2 happens in this situation the UK loses badly as I can only imagine how powerful the German Navy and Air Force would get with all that industry after a WW1 German victory, plus with their head start in the sciences not being screwed up by total German economic collapse and the Nazis going after some of Germany's best minds leading them to flee the country.

If WW2 happens in Europe it likely ends with the UK agreeing to hand over much of their overseas Empire to Imperial Germany.

The US I don't believe in this situation would get involved in WW1 as it would end too early and Germany would seem too strong after the fall of France. If Japan decides to go after Asia I don't see Imperial Germany backing it after they sided against them in WW1 so if the U.S. vs Japan happens its a regional war.
 
Last edited:
There is a french comic series, Jour-J (D-Day), that consist of alternate histories, each album having its timeline.

Two albums treat about WWI : After being beaten by the German at the Battle of the Marne, Clémenceau form a government-in-exile at Alger, France being occupied. Russia is now the only country fighting the German and Austro-Hungarian on the continent, so the Tsar could tried to make peace at any moment. So Clémenceau send Samuel Blondin, a former member of la Brigades du Tigre (a police team), and Jules Bonnot, an anarchist terrorist, to assassinate Nicolas II, to prevent a russian withdraw. On their way to Russia they are pursued by the german intelligence.

To kill the Tsar, they ally themselves with the bolcheviks and the russian anarchists. They blow a lot of stuff up, (notably Nicolas II, some German, then Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all three at once), Russia become anarchist and stay at war with Germany. In the end the Entente win, but the Western World is worried about the threat of the possibility of a spreading of anarchism.

The story is really silly, but it's as awesome as it's silly. You can find more information here about the series and the two albums. Sorry, it's only in French for now.
 
Top