German Victory in World War 1

A violation of Belgium's treaty-obligated neutrality will involve the British on the Continent, regardless of whether the Belgians are victims or co-conspirators in the violation. The only way to avoid the August declaration of war by Britain is for the Germans not to go through Belgium. The most Belgian acquiescence does is make sure the British also declare war on Belgium for violating the Treaty of London (1839).

--

Without the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, you still haven't changed the basic naval facts that make the U.S. a supplier to the Entente instead of the Central Powers, or Woodrow Wilson's basic pro-British slant. So you still get a Zimmerman Telegram in 1917 by a Germany frustrated by the U.S., which is broken by British cryptographers and provokes U.S. entry into the war.
 

MrP

Banned
A violation of Belgium's treaty-obligated neutrality will involve the British on the Continent, regardless of whether the Belgians are victims or co-conspirators in the violation. The only way to avoid the August declaration of war by Britain is for the Germans not to go through Belgium. The most Belgian acquiescence does is make sure the British also declare war on Belgium for violating the Treaty of London (1839).

I have been wondering about that. It's good to have a definite explanation! :)
 
Junking the S Plan would be a better road to victory

With 20/20 hindsight, The S plan of 1905? did not account for the immense logistical demand of keeping the army in the field so far from supplies. Part of the "Miracle of the Marne" was that von Kluck's troops were exhausted and at the end of their supplies.

The stalemate of trench warfare was due in some large part to the inability to keep moving ... having run out of supplies .... so to protect yourself you dug in.

Anotherimpact impact that was overlooked was that of the machine gun on attacking troops. The Japanese storming of Manchurian (Russian) forts defended by machine gun emplacements was witnessed by German military attache's (need to get a cite here), but not really appreciated for its epocal change to warfare.

A better defense/offense situation may have been a defence-in-depth in the Voges Mts, and a dependence on Belgian neutrality to keep the French channeled into the relatively short common border from Belgium to Switzerland.

What think you?

BEP.
 
The S plan would have been the only way. Even if they stayed on the defense the Germans at the end of the war would have no leverage in France. Or would they... Maybe if the French suffered huge causlties then they would have nothing left by the end and the Germans could just sweep through. I will do some research on that. Maybe the French in about 1916 realize they cannot break through. So THEY INVADE BELGIUM!

The thing about Manchuria is in The Guns Of August but I believe it said that the aid was watching that guns could work given a few months. But the Germans didn't have a few months in Belgium. Thanks See, I think i'll go with them going through Belgium anyway. But with the Belgians collaborating because the whole TL revolves around the Belgians cooperating. And about the Zimmerman telegram, my thought was that the British use extreme force putting down the Easter Rebellion because the Germans give the Irish weapons. The atrocities in Ireland and not Belgium is why the Americans stop supplying the British. Or even if they do, the spring offensives would probably pushed all the way to Paris without American intervention.

Is there anything else that should be cleared up. What about what happens after the war. I still like the idea of France being carved up, having all its colonies takes away. Britain gets some colonies taken away and some ships taken. Other then that nothing really happens.
 
The S plan would have been the only way. Even if they stayed on the defense the Germans at the end of the war would have no leverage in France. Or would they... Maybe if the French suffered huge causlties then they would have nothing left by the end and the Germans could just sweep through. I will do some research on that. Maybe the French in about 1916 realize they cannot break through. So THEY INVADE BELGIUM!

The thing about Manchuria is in The Guns Of August but I believe it said that the aid was watching that guns could work given a few months. But the Germans didn't have a few months in Belgium. Thanks See, I think i'll go with them going through Belgium anyway. But with the Belgians collaborating because the whole TL revolves around the Belgians cooperating. And about the Zimmerman telegram, my thought was that the British use extreme force putting down the Easter Rebellion because the Germans give the Irish weapons. The atrocities in Ireland and not Belgium is why the Americans stop supplying the British. Or even if they do, the spring offensives would probably pushed all the way to Paris without American intervention.

Is there anything else that should be cleared up. What about what happens after the war. I still like the idea of France being carved up, having all its colonies takes away. Britain gets some colonies taken away and some ships taken. Other then that nothing really happens.

The S Plan was not the answer, in that Germany lacked the logistical capacity to deliver the finishing blow. The older Moltke plan would've led to Russia bowing out earlier, while France bled itself dry trying to succor its ally. And if France invaded Belgium to bypass German fortifications, support for France in Britain would drop like a rock. Plus, a quick German victory in the East could demoralize France enough to make them sue for peace. The question is whether the nincompoop generals would take a Bismarckian peace, or go for the throat and needlessly extend the war in the West, where anything could've happened, including German defeat. I mean, eventually, both sides find a way out of trench warfare, so the chances of one side losing decisively would increase with the passing of every year.
 
What was the Moltke plan again? I had forgotten and the internet isn't giving much feedback. Although that sounds like a good idea, France would get crushed esp. if they invaded Belgium then England would come in. But that would probably happen a little later after the French realized they couldn't break through the German line. And probably around 1917 the French would be so shaken that the Germans and British could break through and run all the way to Paris.
 
What was the Moltke plan again? I had forgotten and the internet isn't giving much feedback. Although that sounds like a good idea, France would get crushed esp. if they invaded Belgium then England would come in. But that would probably happen a little later after the French realized they couldn't break through the German line. And probably around 1917 the French would be so shaken that the Germans and British could break through and run all the way to Paris.

Checkmate113

Pretty certain its basically Germany wages a offensive in the east to inflict a limited defeat on the Russians and support Austria while staying obn the defencive in the west. The French are forced to assault prepared defencive positions which would be even more murderous than OTL as the Germans would very likely have more forces defending them. As such they might consider a turning move through Belgium themselves once the initial attacks failed. This would seriously screw up any idea of support from Britain or other neutrals. Might still get something in terms of real-politik but would be far more limited and restricted further by a divided public opinion.

On a few points mentioned earlier in the thread.
a) Greater aid for the Irish extremists is likely to lead to a bloodier conflict in Ireland in the event of Britain having no-less involvement in a European conflict. You wouldn't have a war weary population and exhausted economy was an attempt to seize control of a sizeable chunk of the homeland, especially when many of the locals object to it would met a much stronger reaction. Its also something that could prompt British intervention on the continent in response to such German action. More likely, without the war to distract from the crisis in Ireland, some compromise could well be worked out and if the extremists try anything then they are likely to get stomped by the bulk of the population. Possibly still some terrorist problems but you could well remove an independent Ireland.

b) Barring a serious and utter defeat there is no way Britain would concede warships to Germany, especially one that has won a continental war and is even more of a threat. [By this I mean the Germans somehow managing to land forces in Britain and maintain them - which is pretty much ASB]. Depends on how exhausted Germany is by its victory, and possibly whether the US 1916 programme is butterflied, but you could well have a 2 or 3 nation naval race lasting some time and seeing a lot of big ships built.

c) Germany would seek big gains in the east, at least puppet states under de-facto German control, both to supply raw materials and possibly captive markets and to act as a buffer against Russia. It was the latter power they really feared because its rate of growth in both population and raw industrial production meant the Germans thought Russia would become too powerful. Expect at least them to seek to control Russian Poland and most of the Baltic states and possibly at least part of the western Ukraine - although the borders of the Urakine and Poland are pretty fluid at this point.

One point to consider however in a Germany drives east scenario. Its probably more likely to win them the conflict, especially if it delays or prevents British entry. However it would make victory in the east markedly more difficult for the Germans. Mostly because, since Russia is not continually launching offensives to take the pressure off France, as in OTL, the Germans will have to do the attacking which will be markedly more difficult at this time. Also their successes will lengthen the front and their supply lines as they advance deeper in Russian territory. Not to mention that Russia will to fight is likely to last a lot longer while facing an invader than conducting costly offensives to drive westwards.

Steve
 

Markus

Banned
Killing babies and raping nuns? You guys need to stop reading history books from 1919. :D

That being said, the Treaty of London is pretty meaningless. The UK and Germany had some more recent naval issues causing tensions. No way the UK tolerates their naval opponent no.1 to grab the Channel Ports! So dusting off the sort-of Schliefenplan-Ost and not going on the offensive in the west at all would be the best option.

A British entry in the war will be delayed, the one of the USA even more, the western front is more than 50% shorter and already heavily fortified pre-war, so the demand for troops in the west will be a record low. Russia will be lucky to make it to 1916 and after Russia asks for peace the UK´s hunger blockade no longer works, meaning the Entente has run out of options.
 
What was the Moltke plan again? I had forgotten and the internet isn't giving much feedback.

(the following is paraphrased from Diplomacy, by Henry Kissinger)

The elder Moltke (Bismarck's, not the WWI-era general) had a plan where, in case of a two-front war, Germany would stand on the defensive, take France and Russia's first blows, counterattack (probably most successfully in the East), sign a German-favoring compromise peace on one front (probably with the Russians), concentrate forces on the other front and then sign a German-favoring compromise peace on the other.

Schlieffen disliked this because it both left the initiative in the hands of the enemies of Germany and because it relied on compromise instead of imposing victory. Since an early knockout blow could not be scored on Russia, his plan dictated a rapid assault on France, French capitualtion, and then a both-barrels assault on Russia. Said attack, facing French border fortifications, would have to go through Belgium.

Defensive war in the west, victory in the east, bring the forces west is what Germany wound up having to do anyway after the initial invasion of France failed, and it would have been a lot easier to keep Britain neutral if both Russia and France invaded Germany first and Belgium doesn't get touched.

(end paraphrase)


That being said, the Treaty of London is pretty meaningless. The UK and Germany had some more recent naval issues causing tensions. No way the UK tolerates their naval opponent no.1 to grab the Channel Ports!

Oh, certainly, the British wouldn't bother invoking the Treaty of London if it weren't over an issue the British were otherwise willing to go to war over. But the scenario is exactly why the British pushed for the provision in the first place -- to give the UK an excuse to go to war in case of Belgian consent.

Remember, the Belgian revolt against the Dutch was initially with the aim of joining France, and the British did not want the Channel ports in the hand of its #1 rival then, either. So, the Treaty of London gave the British a legal justification for war in case Belgium tried to join or ally with France in, say, the 1840s. Since it was written nonsepcifically, it works just as well in providing a legal justification for the defense of British interests in the case where Belgium allies with Germany in the 1910s.
 

Markus

Banned
Oh, certainly, the British wouldn't bother invoking the Treaty of London if it weren't over an issue the British were otherwise willing to go to war over. But the scenario is exactly why the British pushed for the provision in the first place -- to give the UK an excuse to go to war in case of Belgian consent.

I wanted to say: Who needs an excuse, when you got an actual reason? And a threat to the national security is a reason.
 
I would think that if the adopted Molkte's plan then it would work. The Germans stay on the defensive and the French are suffering huge and out of proportion casualties against the Germans. So in desperation they invade Belgium, which draws a previously neutral Britain into the war. After the war France is split up into five different countries and stripped of all its colonies. Other then that no war guilt or the like is inflicted.

My friends, I think we have a timeline hear!

OBAMA JUST WON PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO!
HOLY CRAP I'M TYPING AND WATCHING THE NEWS!
AT THE SAME TIME!
 
Killing babies and raping nuns? You guys need to stop reading history books from 1919. :D

I am just trying to get my point across. But although the killing babies and raping nuns, many countries have been known to kill and rape stuff over the years...
 
If there's a secret treaty between Belgium and Germany, Belgium will maintain that the French are invading the country and will request British and German assistance. The Germans are of course ready to help immediately, while the BEF has only travel tickets for the French ports. In the situation of 1914, where army commanders usually didn't know where their units really were and the broad public believed the most unbelievable rumours, such a move could succeed.
And with the Germans coming through Belgium by train, Lanrezac's 5th army will also move in trying to interrupt the rail lines, thus providing ample "invading" Frenchmen to show early on.
It's quite clear that Britain can't stay neutral forever, but in the specific situation the British war hawks will have a bad hand in convincing the public that Britain must go to war with Germany.
 
So your saying that Germany could still use the S plan? I think I'm leaning towards the Molkte Plan. Just because you don't need the treaty between Belgium and Germany because you need something to happen with France. With the Molkte plan all you need is the French to be desperate enough to invade Belgium and for the British to stay neutral until then, then they invade. But do you think that that is realistic enough?
 
I was trying to work on your initial premisse. If you now prefere an "East first" scenario, that's quite different.
The S-Plan was the bid for a short war, the "East First" option accepts a long war from the start.
 
Sort of. The whole idea is that Germany is much more prepared for a long war then anyone else. So while everyone else is getting slaughtered they are pretty much spared. Until 1917 when the French line is so weak that the Anglo-German force breaks through French lines in Belgium and Alsalce-Lorraine and drives all the way to Paris. Whereupon the French surrender.
 
Top