Germans capture Paris in 1914, end of WWI?

If Germany captured Paris in 1914, would this end WWI?

  • Yes, the European powers expected a short war, CP and Allies negotiate peace terms

    Votes: 152 52.2%
  • No, France relocates its government and the Allies fight on

    Votes: 78 26.8%
  • No, France surrenders, but the British and Russians continue fighting

    Votes: 61 21.0%
  • No, Germany rejects Allied peace proposals believing they can conquer more of Europe

    Votes: 4 1.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 15 5.2%

  • Total voters
    291
Would there be any point in that? By the time the campaign was well under way, it would be clear that Russia was heading for defeat.

And if Bulgaria has entered the war earlier than OTL (imho a near cert) then Germany can pour in troops just as easily - and with France out has far more troops to pour.

Again, precisely my point. Britain has nowhere to deploy troops, aside from a futile attempt to reach the Russians and provide, at best, meager support. This is clear in the first post of mine you quoted:

Where? Will to fight doesn't matter in this scenario. Going to try for Gallipoli? Sure, they may be able to force the straits if they aren't tied up in France, but by then the war may be over with Russia gone.
 
Would GB be in any position to take the offensive in the ME? Germany now has ample force with which to assist the Turks, so it would probably be mainly a matter of defensing the Suez Canal and fending off a Germsn-Turkish thrust through Persia.

Why wouldn't they? There were 4 divisions in the Med in early 1915, if the BEF wasn't in France it would go to the next best theatre (best being easily deployable, good support etc rather than most likely to bring ultimate victory) and Palestine is pretty good in this regard.

I doubt the Germans would send many troops to the Ottomans before they'd kicked the bejesus out of Russia, they wouldn't want to risk defeat in the primary theatre for the secondary theatre.
 
Why wouldn't they? There were 4 divisions in the Med in early 1915, if the BEF wasn't in France it would go to the next best theatre (best being easily deployable, good support etc rather than most likely to bring ultimate victory) and Palestine is pretty good in this regard.

I doubt the Germans would send many troops to the Ottomans before they'd kicked the bejesus out of Russia, they wouldn't want to risk defeat in the primary theatre for the secondary theatre.

With France out of the game the Germans should have ample manpower to do both. I don't know how many troops they'd need to keep in France (guessing that they'd occupy roughly the same as they did in 1940) but it would surely be a lot fewer than required to man the Western Front. Also, sending troops to Turkey gives them

a) An additional front against Russia in the Caucasus.

b) A chance to occupy the Sinai Peninsula (OTL the OE managed this briefly even without German aid) and either take the Suez Canal or at least get the front close enough to interdict it by artillery fire. That inconveniences Britain enough to be worth doing, and gives Germany a bargaining chip for recovering her colonies, or (along with Persia?) some compensation for not getting them back.

And if German warships are operating from France's Atlantic ports, transporting troops to the Med could be quite hazardous. Germany has more warships than in WW2.
 
I don't know how many troops they'd need to keep in France (guessing that they'd occupy roughly the same as they did in 1940)

If it was anything like Russia in 1918 50 divisions dropping to 25 a year later.

I think if France surrendered in 1914 I think the Germans would redeploy 3 or so armies to the east. Thats not a limitless number.
 
And if German warships are operating from France's Atlantic ports, transporting troops to the Med could be quite hazardous. Germany has more warships than in WW2.

Not only troop transports.
Should they go conservative and station u-boots, light cruisers and small crafts, the Atlantic became contested. (And should they feel lucky and break trough the (already heavily contested and pretty much closed) channel with part of the HSF and succeed...)
 
Not only troop transports.
Should they go conservative and station u-boots, light cruisers and small crafts, the Atlantic became contested. (And should they feel lucky and break trough the (already heavily contested and pretty much closed) channel with part of the HSF and succeed...)

With the GF many miles away at Scapa Flow that should be doable. Alternatively there's always the long way round. Unless they have the bad luck to be spotted by an aircraft (less likely in WW1 than in WW2) they should be able to get through into the Atlantic so long as they keep wireless silence.


If it was anything like Russia in 1918 50 divisions dropping to 25 a year later.
.

But did they actually need that many troops in Russia?

My understanding was that many of these were surplus to actual needs, but were left there because

a) Most of them were second-line troops of only limited use on the Western Front.
b) Bringing them west would have thrown an added burden on Germany's food supplies, whereas in Russia at least they could requisition what they needed.

The food situation was far less acute in 1914 than in 1918, and if the occupation duties were mostly left to Landwehr etc, most of Germany's front-line troops could probably have been freed up. ,
 
With the GF many miles away at Scapa Flow that should be doable. Alternatively there's always the long way round. Unless they have the bad luck to be spotted by an aircraft (less likely in WW1 than in WW2) they should be able to get through into the Atlantic so long as they keep wireless silence.

Still, its hazardous enough for the brass. Leaving the blight pretty much undefended in a long, risky voyage... Tirpitz would have shat bricks at the idea and the Kaiser would have get a heart attack risking his precious ships.

Should they do it, however... full fledged cruiser warfare on the Atlantic, scattering convoys and heavily mined Irish Sea infected approaches with u-boots.

Long story short, IMHO the practical thing from HMs Government would be to cut the losses, make a honourable peace (khm, Belgium) with the Germans on the expense of the French.
 
But did they actually need that many troops in Russia?

My understanding was that many of these were surplus to actual needs, but were left there because

a) Most of them were second-line troops of only limited use on the Western Front.
b) Bringing them west would have thrown an added burden on Germany's food supplies, whereas in Russia at least they could requisition what they needed.

The food situation was far less acute in 1914 than in 1918, and if the occupation duties were mostly left to Landwehr etc, most of Germany's front-line troops could probably have been freed up. ,

I'd say in the early months most certainly 50 divisions would be needed to disarm the French and ensure they abide by the terms of their Treaty, but once the Germans take care of this the requirement will drop so maybe after 6 months they can let 10-15 divisions go and after a year another 5-10. Maybe these can go to Palestine, but I doubt that have first call on troops when the undefeated Russian Army is so massive.
 
The Ottomans can constitute a large enough force to make the British expend efforts to protect Suez, so in late 1914/early 1915 there needs to be something there, and even absent the Western Front it will take time to build enough force to attack the Ottomans in Palestine. remember whatever of the BEF was evacuated from France there have been personnel losses and equipment losses from moderate to severe - that takes time to rebuild. No Marine Nationale means the RN has to protect the Med on its own, while keeping the Home Fleet as a shield against the HSF and dealing with the early U-Boat threat. Italy is at best neutral, so the AH forces have free access to the Med, if Italy has joined in that makes life more difficult for the RN.

The reality is that even if Gallipoli goes off on schedule and is successful, it will be a slog before the British arrive at Istanbul. OK late summer 1915 the Ottomans give up - does that really help Russia? Not that much, and even under the most optimistic, maybe even ASB, results bu the time the UK could knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war the Russians are either out or close to it. Even a relatively free supply line to Russia through the Med/straits/Black Sea is not going to solve the Russian problems. All of this assumes the UK is willing to make the sort of sacrifices in blood and treasure needed to get to this point, still far away from Germany defeated.

Had Germany not invaded Belgium, getting support for Britain entering the war would have been difficult at best. If Germany agrees to leave Belgium, maybe even use some of the money they get from France to fix the damage, why should Britain fight. I also wonder how eager Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa will be to send forces in to a fight where France is out and at best they are fighting for Russia.

I disagree about how many divisions Germany needs for French occupation. They only need to have a significant presence in territories to be annexed or occupied (like the Rhineland) for a longer term. For the rest of France once they supervise demobilization, collect guns etc only a relatively small number of monitors were needed - look at 1870/71 and once France gave up, Germany did not have armies all over France. The only place you'll see Germans other than as noted is a few channel ports - to prevent the British from waltzing over and to prvide support for the HSF.
 
Still, its hazardous enough for the brass. Leaving the blight pretty much undefended in a long, risky voyage... Tirpitz would have shat bricks at the idea and the Kaiser would have get a heart attack risking his precious ships.

But is the Bight still their main concern? Once France falls, they control the coast from Bruges to Bayonne, and if Britain tries anything amphibious, it will surely be across the Channel into friendly country, rather than a much longer voyage, through mine-infested waters, to attack a thoroughly hostile coast.


Should they do it, however... full fledged cruiser warfare on the Atlantic, scattering convoys and heavily mined Irish Sea infected approaches with u-boots.

Don't know if convoys would even be introduced. They'd be a lot less use against battle-cruisers (and mines) than against U-boats. Otherwise I pretty much agree.
 
Had Germany not invaded Belgium, getting support for Britain entering the war would have been difficult at best. If Germany agrees to leave Belgium, maybe even use some of the money they get from France to fix the damage, why should Britain fight.
I strongly believe that Germany would be okay with a neutral but disarmed (including dismantling forts) Belgium, sans colonies of course. Britain might be okay with this as well, they can sell it as a success at home and it's a good excuse to get out of the war.
 
Top