French Options if Germany goes east in 1914
- Thread starter Old1812
- Start date
It's an interesting question: could Belgium have been swayed out of neutrality, or was force the only option? Assuming Belgium is as devoted to remaining neutral as many insist, France deciding to invade probably just comes down to how desperate they are and how much they're willing to deal with a moderately annoyed Britain.
Arent they constitutionally bound to neutrality at this point (however that works)?
Riain
Banned
So if 3 French armies get lured into the trap and get destroyed what happens then? They still have 2 regular armies and organised 4 more by September IOTL, so the 4 German armies won't have the strength to launch much of a counter offensive. There will be a stalemate along the frontier, which makes the French position much better than OTL.
I think Joffre is just going to have to attack them; and he might just have been brazen and desperate enough to do it by the following spring without bothering to ask anyone in Paris.
Not sure those armies would be destroyed, but severely mutilated, at any rate, and in the short term, that would amount the same thing.
A stalemate works against France, because now Germany has a secure rear while it's hacking off pounds of Russian flesh. The Russian war effort collapses by 1916, very likely in revolution, and at that point, France has little choice but to open negotiations. Any advantage it has by retaining its northeastern provinces (occupied by the Germans OTL) is offset by the hits to morale from the disaster in Lorraine, and the absence of co-belligerents in London, Brussels, and Rome. Its only ally is a badly staggering Russian bear.
marathag
Banned
But since the Germans will be doing a real thrashing of the Russians, that takes pressure off the Austrians, that lets them go more against Serbia.
Stalemate in the West is what's needed, with British still an unfriendly Neutral while French feed men into the Saar meatgrinder.
Italy sits, an unfriendly Ally
Things are looking up for the CP, overall, especial with no Belgian Atrocity reports coming out from all British Newspapers
Riain
Banned
Russia's plan 19-20 in 1914 was just as bad and inflexible as the rest. 2 armies were to fight in East Prussia at m+2 weeks, 4 armies were to fight AH at m+4 weeks, these were not able to be changed, regardless of what Germany does. The only change in Russia will be the 2 armies for Silesia at m+6 weeks so any pressure off AH compared to OTL will be 1 of those 2 armies not going to AH. This is hardly going to allow AH to stage a significant recovery from the defeats starting at m+4 weeks.
Weeell, not completly agreeable. ... at least if we follow Dobrorolski and Golovin in their descriptions of the eary deployment phase.
The orders for forming 9th and afterwards 10th army had to be given until 6th to 7th August latest as at that point of time the train moving the troops from St.Petersburg and Vilnius districts could be directed either to 1913 variant plan 19 "Plan A" (Austria) or "Plan G" (Germany) - or the mixture variant as OTL.
Only from that point of time their routes were rather "fixed".
Nevertheless they were "flexible" enough to redirect XVIIIth Corps (St.Petersburg district) of 9th Army in late August from its destination between Warsaw and Ivangorod to the rail-line to Lublin to be detrained there - west of Lublin - to catch exhausted austrian I. Corps of 1st Army in its open flank while limping towards Lublin short of driving of the not least exhausted russian XIV. Corps of russian 4th Army off Lublin.
Something that wouldn't happen ITTL ... as the russian 9th Army very likely would be directed north as the russian 1st and 2nd Army would be very likey almost anihilated by at least 3 german armies with something between 16 to 20 Corps (according to Staabs) (instead of 4 Corps of OTL) attacking the Narew line towards the general direction of Bialystock.
Therefore the retreat of austrian 1st and 4th Army won't happen - at least not as OTL - keeping the ITTL remnants of russian 4th and 5th Army seriously threatened in their right flank.
Given the rather ... "cautious" approach of russian 3rd Amy commander Ruzsky it seems very likely to me that after having coucht Low he wouldn'rt "press" for Przemysel as IOTL. Therefore at least western Galizia would not be occupied by the russians as IOTL, austrian 1st and 4th armiey not routed as IOTL.
And also very likely now the whole of "small Poland" west of the Vistula will be occupied by germans while the russian will be panickingly busy to establish something like a defense along the Vistula to secure Warsaw and Novo-Georgiesk as THE signs of russian rule in Poland.
... IMHO a rather "comfortable" position for the austrians to recover. ... at least compared to OTL.
If the Germans advance to the Narew while the Austrians are headed for Lublin, the Russians may have to pull out of the Polish salient. Of course, this is assuming AH 1st Army is able to take the city, which will likely be difficult considering the casualties they'll have taken before then. An advance on Lublin would also be unlikely if the Russians penetrate much farther than the Dneister, for fear of 1st Army getting themselves cut off.
Yeah. I think you're probably right about that.
And that would be a sizable help to the Austrians.
Riain
Banned
I have a vague idea that the 9th and 10th, which didn't exist in 1913 for plan A or G, could be moving but without a final destination until something like the 16th or 17th.
The question is, is that sufficient time to do anything significant? The Russians IOTL expected to face 15-25 divisions and invaded EP with about 25 divisions (?), the 1913 German Eastern Plan had 1 Army mobilised in EP, 1 coming in by train, 1 marching in from west of the Vistula and 1 coming in after all that was done perhaps by week 4. It would take Russia time to realise that they were facing more than their top estimate of 25 divisions, especially when even this would be 30-32 divisions, is there enough time for the Russians to realise they're facing 30+ division and re route 9th and 10th Armies in such a way as to focus on Germany on the defensive? What about the very first clash with AH, which IIRC was a victory for AH, how does this play on Russian minds?
How long does it take for new of France to get to Russia? From week 2 or 3 they hear of the French advance deep into Lorraine, but this only turns sour from week 3 and 4, by which time 6 Russian armies are fully deployed; 2 are knackered, 4 are only just engaging with mixed results and 2 more are on their way whatever destination they decided on from week 2 or 3.
Marc
Donor
It is an interesting thought experiment. Going by the title of the thread:
French Options if Germany goes east in 1914. (Italics added)
The conventional assumption is that the French just simply attack near frontally and get seriously mauled. Giving the Germans ample time to deal with Russia.
What if they act smarter, French brilliance triumphs over French ego? And please lets not be deterministic about this - it is after all about what-if.
What is the best French strategy that can do the most harm to the Kaiserreich?
French Options if Germany goes east in 1914. (Italics added)
The conventional assumption is that the French just simply attack near frontally and get seriously mauled. Giving the Germans ample time to deal with Russia.
What if they act smarter, French brilliance triumphs over French ego? And please lets not be deterministic about this - it is after all about what-if.
What is the best French strategy that can do the most harm to the Kaiserreich?
Well, this *is* Joseph-Jacques-Césaire Joffre we're talking about...
Maybe if you get him in a car accident or choked to death on a chicken bone and somehow get Joseph Gallieni in charge, you could find a little more room for some brilliance.
But the basic strategic situation is pretty brutal for the French, no matter how you cut it. France has no realistic chance of defeating the four German armies that would have been deployed in Alsace-Lorraine, given their fixed fortifications and artillery, the terrain, the logistics, french tactical doctrine and the limitations of the French 75 - even if Gallieni manages to refrain from sticking his head (or another valuable body part) in Schlieffen's woodchipper in Central Lorraine. Swinging through Belgium doesn't really help them much, and arguably hurts them - Belgian resources are offset by another hundred miles of front they have to man, and the consequences of resulting British disaffection, even assuming they can somehow keep the Belgians from resisting.
Losing Britain as an active part of the Entente is a huge, huge loss, and in the long run, it spells almost certain defeat for France and Russia. It might take a couple years, admittedly, with a little more brilliance from French officers.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Cut thru Belgium. That gets the British Press worked up almost as much, as I don't see the French behaving much better towards franc tireurs than the Germans. But tou want to damage the Germans with your query, you didn't ask for a way to win
Marc
Donor
Well, this *is* Joseph-Jacques-Césaire Joffre we're talking about...
Maybe if you get him in a car accident or choked to death on a chicken bone and somehow get Joseph Gallieni in charge, you could find a little more room for some brilliance.
But the basic strategic situation is pretty brutal for the French, no matter how you cut it. France has no realistic chance of defeating the four German armies that would have been deployed in Alsace-Lorraine, given their fixed fortifications and artillery, the terrain, the logistics, french tactical doctrine and the limitations of the French 75 - even if Gallieni manages to refrain from sticking his head (or another valuable body part) in Schlieffen's woodchipper in Central Lorraine. Swinging through Belgium doesn't really help them much, and arguably hurts them - Belgian resources are offset by another hundred miles of front they have to man, and the consequences of resulting British disaffection, even assuming they can somehow keep the Belgians from resisting.
Losing Britain as an active part of the Entente is a huge, huge loss, and in the long run, it spells almost certain defeat for France and Russia. It might take a couple years, admittedly, with a little more brilliance from French officers.
I was ruminating about Luxembourg as a battleground. Depending on timing, on whether the Germans invade or not, and so on; avoiding the prepared German defenses. The goal being to force a commitment to the Western Front that could impact what happens on the Eastern.
Also, my take on the British staying indefinitely out of a war just because the Germans don't invade Belgium is debatable - as other posters on various threads on this topic have questioned.
Oh, sure; I know; I've been in enough of those threads!
But the more I read of the history, the more I am convinced that the longer Britain waits to enter the war, the less likely it is that it will. Regardless of which party is running Westminster.
Riain
Banned
Given every major power entered the war, often on the flimsiest of pretenses, I truly struggle with the idea that Britain alone will remain aloof.
And yet, this can be misleading, because in many ways, Britain itself really was the fulcrum in turning what would have been regional, continental European war into a genuinely *world* war. It made some fairly flimsy pretenses much more viable.
Once Britain is in, her ability to interdict and absorb world trade, and her financial and diplomatic power, make it a much easier decision for other powers to jump in on the Allied (Entente) side. In Europe itself, Italy is the most obvious example - it's not *impossible* to get Italy into the war with a neutral Britain, but it would have been considerably harder. Portugal and Greece - even more so. Outside Europe, it's going to be much harder to get the United States, Japan, or Brazil into the war without the British already in up to their foreheads. Look at how much trade and investments America had with Entente countries versus CP countries in 1914, and then look at it in 1917.
So why does Britain jump in, if somehow Grey or his machinations which get Britain in on August 4 are absent? What happens when the stories, the photographs, and the casualty figures from the trenches start filtering into the coverage in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail, and the movie houses in Britain? How will British public opinion react to that? It could be, in fact, that when British action does come, it's more restrained: severing of diplomatic relations, an embargo, even a blockade against the offending side (or both sides?) - rather than full-blown belligerency with an army of millions sent off to the Continent. But even this would be a great advantage for the Central Powers over Britain's role in the war in OTL.
Last edited: