Franco-German War before WWI?

Was it possible for France and Germany to clash again before a general European war? Others could join this theoretical conflict, Austria with Germany and Russia with France for example, but the main row would have to be between France and Germany. Was France too smart to entangle itself with Germany after 1871, or was war an actual possibility given big political shifts in either nation?
 
There were all sorts of "moments" before WWI where something could have happened but France, as much as it wanted revanche, was not going to go up against Germany without a strong Russian partner and at least good odds of the UK being on their side. Russia was a pretty weak reed 1900-1910 at least after the Russo-Japanese War and the revolution/unrest in Russia following the defeat. Also the UK, though it never had a formal agreement with France, was drifting towards an informal arrangement which became fairly tight by 1914.

The one thing France would not do is go up against Germany absent proper "correlation of forces". While tactically the French were not too sharp, but did know they could not take on Germany by themselves...
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Do you mean is there a time when France would feel strong enough to fight Germany on her own?

The answer is yes- certainly in the early 1890's France was very strong versus Germany. First with the introduction of the Lebel rifle which was the first to take smokeless powder and then in the late 1890's with the introduction of the 75 recoiless gun.

Salisbury once commented during a crises that Germany wouldn't risk war due to the Lebel.

He was right. France couldn't conquer Germany but could certainly defeat a German invasion

Even in 1914, the only thing that saved Germany was Joffre's idiocy of plan XVII, a recent mistake of the French. If France had stuck with plan XVI, she would likely have defeated the German invasion and that is against a Germany that was massively superior to France after massive army investment. The ratio of forces is much more to France's advantage until 1910
 
Do you mean is there a time when France would feel strong enough to fight Germany on her own?

The answer is yes- certainly in the early 1890's France was very strong versus Germany. First with the introduction of the Lebel rifle which was the first to take smokeless powder and then in the late 1890's with the introduction of the 75 recoiless gun.

Salisbury once commented during a crises that Germany wouldn't risk war due to the Lebel.

He was right. France couldn't conquer Germany but could certainly defeat a German invasion

Even in 1914, the only thing that saved Germany was Joffre's idiocy of plan XVII, a recent mistake of the French. If France had stuck with plan XVI, she would likely have defeated the German invasion and that is against a Germany that was massively superior to France after massive army investment. The ratio of forces is much more to France's advantage until 1910

No, France could not do It alone while Germany had allies and France was isolated.

And the power gap between France and Germany was widening. Germany was growing faster than France and developing a heavy industry that were overcoming Britain's. Germany's demography was very dynamic while France's was very weak.

Germany's industrial production was twice as big as France's, although France was very innovation and leader in électricité and auto industry.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
No, France could not do It alone while Germany had allies and France was isolated.

And the power gap between France and Germany was widening. Germany was growing faster than France and developing a heavy industry that were overcoming Britain's. Germany's demography was very dynamic while France's was very weak.

Germany's industrial production was twice as big as France's, although France was very innovation and leader in électricité and auto industry.

Your assuming that France faces an attack from both Italy and Germany rather than just a German threat. That is very doubtful whenever Crispi is out of power in Italy up until 1891 and after Adowa. One of the reasons France turns to Russia after 1891 is the failure to reach an accomadation with Italy

Austria has no interest in attacking France, backing a German attack on France or any such nonsense. Just the latent threat of the Russians would prevent that even if the Russians don't lift a finger.

Is France ever strong enough to invade Germany in the period? No nor did I contend that. What I said is that France is capable of defeating a German invasion and doing it decisively opening a way for a French counter invasion. If it wasn't for the dingbatted strategy of Joffre, the French were quite capable of decisively defeating Germany in 1914

Yes, Germany is growing stronger but its not until after 1900 that the disparity between the two really grows and France was arming far more heavily than Germany up until 1912

In any event, all France has to do is get to the Rhine and all of the advantages that Germany has go away. Not only do about 8,000,00 Germans fall to French occupation but most of her heavy industry as well

The thread assumption is that if Germany gets allies, then it spreads and France get allies as well.

Let's look at a Franco-German War in 1900. The Germans simply lack the army to implement anything along the Schliefflen Plan. They are going towards the French fortress line and the French are planning a defensive campaign The Germans are still dressed in Prussian Blue, lack the heavy artillery, trench mortars and the fortress killers. Any strike against the French fortresses is going to resemble Port Arthur- a long bloody fight with very heavy losses for the attacker. In 1914, the French had 800,000 men in their fortresses- almost as many as the 1,300,000 man invasion force.

Furthermore, the French 75's are vastly superior to the German 77's in both range and rate of fire nor do the Germans have the massive shell reserves they had in 1914. Neither side have many machine guns (in 1914 the Germans had about a two to one advantage)

In short, the Germans are going up against a superior force with better equipment in strong defensive positions. They will be defeated and defeated decisively
 
France had good canons, but german artillery remained superior in quantity.

Most of Germany's industrial power was in the Ruhr, which on the right bank of the Rhine, not on the left bank, in Silesia and Saxony. So a french invasion of Rhineland would not have significantly weakened Germany's industrial power.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
France had good canons, but german artillery remained superior in quantity.

Most of Germany's industrial power was in the Ruhr, which on the right bank of the Rhine, not on the left bank, in Silesia and Saxony. So a french invasion of Rhineland would not have significantly weakened Germany's industrial power.



The Germans don't have superior numbers of quick firing artillery in 1900. They both had about 3,000 pieces each with shell reserves of under a 1,000 each(in 1914 the ratio would be about 6,500 German 77s to 4,500 French 75s and a German shell reserve of 3,000 to 1,500 French)

The heavy industry of Germany was heavily depended on the coal and iron from the West Bank of the Rhine as well as the Rhine for transportation purposes.

In any event, the French would have achieved all their objectives once they reached the Rhine- the loss provinces would have been recovered, strong defensive positions established (just blow the bridges and let the Germans figure out a way across) and the population disparity vastly changed. Going from 68000,000 to 42,000,000 to 60,000,000-50,000,000. It was only through the exploitation of the conquered French, Belgium and Luxemburg resources that Germany managed to survive in WWI

Even in 1914, France had the military capability to defeat the Germans decisively. It was only Joffre's failure to stand on the defensive and make proper use of the reserves and fortresses that allow Germany to achieve anything under the Schlieffen plan.
 
Even if they had conquered Rhineland, which I think It could, your big mistake is to count people of Rhineland as french men.

France population remains under 40 million people whatever territories It occupies.

France's big mistake in 1914 was that It had not enough understood that it was heavy artillery that mattered. France thought what would be decisive was the bravery of its soldiers. It was not sounder 25 years earlier.

The french army became superior only when It made a technological, strategic and tactical breakthrough : the use of tanks at the serviçe of a mobile strategy in 1918.

Before this, thinking they could have won a war against Germany is an illusion. If It had been a reality, they would have had their revenge at the time.
 
is this the french version of the "wunderwaffen" myth? :D

in 1870 french guns were also superior to german ones and the number of troops was not so hilariously one sided as in 1914. someone once said that single weapons systems dont decide wars.
 
In 1870, Germany already had a clear numerical davantage. Its army had 30% more troops than France. It had an organized and universal conscription which France had not.

It had more railroads and its railroads were built westward, which enabled to bring fresh new troops in the front way faster than France.

So I agree with anotherlurker : no matter the sligh difference with mid range canons.
 
Big guns, yes important, but not as much as the rate of fire from small arms. If machine guns are used in big numbers, it will be a very different war than either side had fought before, just as in WWI. Cavalry are out, and there only use would be as dragoons, not bad in itself, but not the job they are meant for. The French could be using the Lebel, but the Germans the Masuer. If the model 1889, was used, I'd give to the Germans, just.
Going back to big guns, rate of fire is all well and good, but only if you know where the enemy is and with no aircraft, it can be a hard job, know out forces other than the other side big guns.
Also depends on what the aims of the war are and who is attacking whom.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Even if they had conquered Rhineland, which I think It could, your big mistake is to count people of Rhineland as french men.

France population remains under 40 million people whatever territories It occupies.

France's big mistake in 1914 was that It had not enough understood that it was heavy artillery that mattered. France thought what would be decisive was the bravery of its soldiers. It was not sounder 25 years earlier.

The french army became superior only when It made a technological, strategic and tactical breakthrough : the use of tanks at the serviçe of a mobile strategy in 1918.

Before this, thinking they could have won a war against Germany is an illusion. If It had been a reality, they would have had their revenge at the time.


The question here is can the French between 1971 and 1914 ever be able to accept war with Germany and have a reasonable chance of success. The answer is clearly "yes". From about the late 1880's up until about 1912 the French actually are likely to win such a war.

Even in 1912, the germans are not so superior that they can be assured of victory- in fact, its only the idiocy of Joffre that gives them any chance at all.

The Germans launch their invasion with about 1,3000,000 men. Against this the French have-

1,000,000 in the Regular Army

450,000 in the reserves

180,000 in the territorials

200,000 in the GVC guarding communications

800,000 in the fortresses

Only a truly incompetent idiot (i.e. Joffre) can manage defeat when attacked by a force of less than half the size in a war that favors the defenders. Even Joffre has opportunities to win the war by, for example, successfully exploiting the gap between 1st and 2nd army during the Marne

Yes, Germany had advantages in heavy industry and manpower but doesn't exploit that advantage until after the 2nd Moroccan Crises leads to abandoning the Naval Race. Before that, the Germans lack many of the material advantages of the 1914 campaign and even a Joffre should be able to manage a successful defense of France

The bottom line- if the Germans tried the Schleiffen Plan in 1905- when the Russians are basically out, they are going to be defeated. You can subtract the ten Italian divisions from Schleiffen's numbers because they aren't joining. Then the Germans are going up against the Belgian and French northern fortresses without the heavy artillery advantage that they used in 1914 and Schleiffen is bringing in the Dutch against the Germans as well.

All the Germans are going to achieve is bloody losses as they batter themselves against the French fortresses in battles that resemble the siege of Port Arthur. Eventually the Germans are going to tire of it and the French can launch counter attacks against a weakened, bloodied and demoralized German army. The French are very likely to get to the Rhine and then the war ends unless the Germans aren't able to get their armies out of the Rhineland in which case the French are going to have a field day invading Germany

However, once the Rhine is reached, the French are likely to be satisfied having achieved any reasonable objective. That some of the conquered people are Germans is irrelevant. They can be taxed and contribute to France's defense and the Germans lose them so they will be much poorer. In any event, the Rhine is a beautiful defensive line
 
I thought the question was France going to war with Germany?

At any time between 1870 and 1914 the mobilization process was going to be slower in France than Germany for a variety of reasons. Neither side was going to launch any sort of an attack without mobilization, and when mobilized Germany had more troops than France. Quality and quantity of artillery was not going to be such an advantage for either side. Furthermore the terrain through which France would have to attack Germany (assuming in this scenario neither side goes through Belgium) is quite rugged, and relatively well protected with fortresses which in the pre-1914 era are relatively proof against most artillery.

Given a one front war, that is Germany vs France with Russia, A-H, Italy sitting it out (and of course the UK not involved) Germany will be happy to let France bleed itself trying to regain Elsaß-Lothrigen. The Schlieffen Plan was a response to the potential of a two-front war (France in the west, Russia in the east). In a one front war, especially when France attacks and Germany is on the defensive, there is no need for the first step to be an attack through neutral Belgium. Once France has advanced a little if at all, and has been bleeding itself, an "aggrieved" Germany asking for permission to advance through a corner of Belgium might very well be accepted by Belgium, and if limited even without permission might not draw anything more than some nasty words from the UK.
 
A big part of this thread seems to be about the incompetency of Joffre during the start of the war. Can someone expend a bit?

In France he's remembered fondly for the "taxis de la Marne" offensive which turned the tide. I'll admit however my knowledge of that period is shaky at the very best. Can somebody write two lines about why his plan was bad?
 
Well, the overall French idea that "élan" could overcome machine guns, that the "morale" of French troops would overcome superior numbers, good defensive positions, etc was part of it. Plan XVII, in essence, this plan had the French army going straight at Germany, across some areas of very difficult terrain and in the face of fortified areas and fortresses that had been being developed and built since Germany had taken Alsace and parts of Lorraine.

All of the generals on both sides were not really in touch with the changes in warfare with barbed wire, machine guns, etc (although the Russo-Japanese War had featured all this). The French held on to their ideas for most if not all of the war with few exceptions, Joffre and continued "grand offensives" were an example of this.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
A big part of this thread seems to be about the incompetency of Joffre during the start of the war. Can someone expend a bit?

In France he's remembered fondly for the "taxis de la Marne" offensive which turned the tide. I'll admit however my knowledge of that period is shaky at the very best. Can somebody write two lines about why his plan was bad?

Joffre's big mistake was not understanding that while the offensive is decisive, its not a matter of just launching an offensive but when and where.

The situation in 1914 is rather obvious- the Germans are attacking France and the French have a hundred Russian divisions marching to their aid. In this situation, the military solution is obvious- stand on the defensive and wait for your relief force and then launch your counterattacks. This was French military thinking up until the enactment of Plan XVII

Even worse, Joffre doesn't make any use of the tremendous fortress line that France had spent her treasure building and was impenetrable as the battles of 1914 where to show. Rather he launches his attack as basically a sortie from those fortresses leaving hundred of thousands of men unused.

If he simply had removed the two southern armies from Alsace, placing one on the north of the 5th army and using the other as a strategic reserve around Paris, he would have been able to avoid the German flanking movements, not run the risk of the 5th army's destruction (Lanrezac extracts it with skill and luck- the Germans have several opportunities to destroy it and the French Republic) and opened up numerous opportunities to defeat the Germans by enveloping the 1st and 2nd German armies

This is the strategy Joffre falls back on after the disaster of the frontier battles- the offensive in Alsace is abandoned, the forces retreat to the fortress line using Nancy and verdun as their pivots. These forces are then desperately shifted to around Paris for the Battle of the Marne. Unfortunately because of the heavy casualties France had suffered during the Frontier Battles, they can't fully exploit their opportunities

Even worse, he pressured the Russians into a premature offensive in the East costing them their 1st and 2nd armies. If the Russians were given two more weeks before launching the East Prussian campaign, its very likely they could have reversed the outcome ending the war

Simply put- if France had stuck to Plan XVI, then the likely outcome is the defeat of the German northern armies, the freeing of Belgium and Northern France from German occupation and the destruction of the Germans in East Prussia. The war would have been over by the end of September
 
Thanks a lot to you both for your great answer!

I tried reading the plan on Wikipedia but when you don't have any experience in military strategy, it's not easy to see why it's bad, so really thanks!

Basically the previous plan was "wait and hold" for the German to crash themselves on the fortresses, right?
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Thanks a lot to you both for your great answer!

I tried reading the plan on Wikipedia but when you don't have any experience in military strategy, it's not easy to see why it's bad, so really thanks!

Basically the previous plan was "wait and hold" for the German to crash themselves on the fortresses, right?

There's a bit more to it. They make some provisions for the German swing through Belgium. They could have done more. But simply taking the 1st army and putting it above the fifth and pulling the 2nd army back to Paris as a strategic reserve (something Joffre leaves out though its the most important thing for a commander) would have done wonders

Joffre is a lot like Conrad- he doesn't understand the limitations of his men and asks too much of them. The French reserves suffered from a lack of NCOs and poor training. They need time to be brought up to speed. This is really best done while on the defensive rather than making headlong charges at the enemy. Thirty to sixty days would do wonders but, sadly, too many never get the chance. Sending them down to stiffen the fortress line would have been a good use of them

The other main error of Joffre is not taking advantage of the German need for speed. It was understood that the farther an army had to march from its supplies, the weaker it got. The Germans have to deploy hundreds of thousands of men guarding their communications and the resupply was getting pretty bad. Its what defeats the Germans at the Marne. Waiting until then would have meant the French were attacking very weak German units rather than their full strength as they do in the Battles of the Frontier

But seriously, when you have a massive relief force headed your way (the Russian Army) its really silly to attack before they are ready
 

LordKalvert

Banned
I thought the question was France going to war with Germany?

At any time between 1870 and 1914 the mobilization process was going to be slower in France than Germany for a variety of reasons. Neither side was going to launch any sort of an attack without mobilization, and when mobilized Germany had more troops than France. Quality and quantity of artillery was not going to be such an advantage for either side. Furthermore the terrain through which France would have to attack Germany (assuming in this scenario neither side goes through Belgium) is quite rugged, and relatively well protected with fortresses which in the pre-1914 era are relatively proof against most artillery.

Given a one front war, that is Germany vs France with Russia, A-H, Italy sitting it out (and of course the UK not involved) Germany will be happy to let France bleed itself trying to regain Elsaß-Lothrigen. The Schlieffen Plan was a response to the potential of a two-front war (France in the west, Russia in the east). In a one front war, especially when France attacks and Germany is on the defensive, there is no need for the first step to be an attack through neutral Belgium. Once France has advanced a little if at all, and has been bleeding itself, an "aggrieved" Germany asking for permission to advance through a corner of Belgium might very well be accepted by Belgium, and if limited even without permission might not draw anything more than some nasty words from the UK.

It would depend on how the war broke out. If it started as some bizarre attempt to regain the lost provinces, yes, Germany can simply defend.

If however, its because the French grab something the Germans want (i.e. Morocco) the Germans are going to have to attack the French, beat them and then take what they want
 
Top