Germany Going With the Old Plan

[LittleSpeer]

Instead of going straight into France and locking the stalemate. What would happen if the Germans dug DEEP into there border with a few army's on the french side and put most of their weight to invading Russia and helping the Austrians in the Balkans.

-How long would it be before Britain entered the war or would she?

-Would Italy stay neutral?

-How long would it be before the Russians collapsed against the German Army? Mid 1916?


If then Germany defeated Russia and the war in the Balkans was over. Could the "Ludendorff" offensives work in Alsace-Lorraine after 4 years of a stalemate and work the french over enough for a truce or would both sides be tired enough to call a white peace(I'm guessing not with all that confidence in beating Russia)

 

[Anaxagoras]

-How long would it be before Britain entered the war or would she?

She might not. It was a closer-run thing IOTL than many people realize, and without a German invasion of Belgium, there's no specific reason for the British to enter the war. As long as the Germans promise to keep their fleet in its ports, the British may well sit this one out.

-Would Italy stay neutral?

Yes. It was mostly due to British hectoring that she joined IOTL. Without that, I can't see her getting in.

-How long would it be before the Russians collapsed against the German Army? Mid 1916?

Sounds about right.


If then Germany defeated Russia and the war in the Balkans was over. Could the "Ludendorff" offensives work in Alsace-Lorraine after 4 years of a stalemate and work the french over enough for a truce or would both sides be tired enough to call a white peace(I'm guessing not with all that confidence in beating Russia)[/quote]

 

[bastian]

a few army's on the french side

a few army would resist the French?... yeah, it´s possible but, how few?

 

[Tellus]

Britain probably stays neutral, and we have a trench war in the west as in OTL, but a major difference is that its now fought on German soil rather than on French soil. Vital industries in Northern France are still functional whereas the Germans are suffering economically from the devastation right on top of their annexed resource-rich Alsace.

This being said, if the British do sit it out, its not a bad tradeoff. Russia will take time to subdue though, and this plan requires planning for a long war rather than a 6-weeks thing.

 

[Alratan]

In many ways, fighting the war against the Germans inside Russia itself is a substantial advantage for the Russians, their logistics and morale will relatively be much stronger than IOTL. I'm also not quite sure how you knock the Russians out of the war in this scenario without risking a Napoleonic style humiliation. Not invading Belgium also means no Antwerp nitrates, which could lead to early German defeat.

 

[Onkel Willie]

But if Britain remains neutral, can't the Germans just import nitrates. There will be no blockade ITTL.

 

[Alratan]

But if Britain remains neutral, can't the Germans just import nitrates. There will be no blockade ITTL.

They can, the issue is that they probably can't import them fast enough. Nitrate consumption was vastly faster than pre-war estimates allowed for. Their may or may not be a blockade, I have serious doubts that the British wouldn't get involved, in my opinion Belgium was just an excuse.

 

[Cornelius]

Instead of going straight into France and locking the stalemate. What would happen if the Germans dug DEEP into there border with a few army's on the french side and put most of their weight to invading Russia and helping the Austrians in the Balkans.

We would discuss if a "France First" strategy could have changed the outcome of the war .

Seriously, Germany and A-H could have fared better. The border with France was relatevly short and easy to defende, so we could have got a static statlemat on the western front. Without the invasion of Belgium, Great Britain would have stayed out of the war, as Italy (which was convinced by the british to join) and the ottoman empire.
This doesn't mean that Germany would have won. As Altaran wrote, they could have defeated by General Winter, but probably it would have winded up in another static front.
My guess is that after a couple of years of fighting, the UK would have brokered a peace agreement to preserve the power equilibrium in Europe.

 

[Nae'Blis]

Italy may actualy join the war on the side of the Central Powers in such a situation.

 

[Moltke]

but a major difference is that its now fought on German soil rather than on French soil. Vital industries in Northern France are still functional whereas the Germans are suffering economically from the devastation right on top of their annexed resource-rich Alsace.

I think you make the good point when you mention that a lot of OTL lost French industry and resources will remain in the hands of the Third Republic. But I'm not sure that this translates into devastation in Western Germany. I think the Germans could have holed up pretty good in the fortresses in Alsace and there is very limited room for French invasion routes unless they want to violate Belgium and/or Luxemburg (who creates major offensive problems for France) neutrality themselves. I suppose you might see major battles ala Verdun around Metz or even Strasburg but I'm confidence the Germans could have held out almost indefinitely if they were prepared truly for a defensive strategy. The Ruhr region is the dangerous area for Germany, but I just don't think there is room for France to get in and do real damage. OTL Germany moved into France with a large flank on her mind and as the front line moved to the sea she eliminated the chance of any flanking counter movement to herself. (Outside some type of British/Allied amphibious landing behind the lines.) Any French invasion from the West creating any bulge or bubble into German soil is going to have major worries about being cut off via counter offensives from either Westphalia in the North or Baden/Bavaria in the South. Add into the mix that British support ala manpower is going to be delayed at best or non existent more likely.

Russia will take time to subdue though, and this plan requires planning for a long war rather than a 6-weeks thing.

Hmmm, how much time are you talking? I'm actually wondering just how long Russia can last if they are faced with an actually real Germany power push in addition to the Austrian mopping up what they can. I'm thinking they might be forced to sue for peace or agree to some harsh terms within a couple years. Imperial Germany would not be out for complete conquest just some territory adjustments along the border. I don't think a Brest-Litovsk repeat is the only course of action.

 

[Moltke]

Italy may actualy join the war on the side of the Central Powers in such a situation.

Well like someone mentioned it took some sweet offers and heckling from the UK along with a doubtful Germany victory to bribe the Former Triple Alliance member to stab her former allies in the back. I see this as very likely. If Britain doesn't get involved then it's a near certainty. They'll just jump in later in the war when victory is secure probably.

 

[Susano]

Italy will be CP or Entente, but it will never be neutral. Italy was the warsbig opportunist, it wanted to gain, no matter from what side. So, to decide side, either it gets bribed financially as IOTL, or it joins after a while the side that looks like its winning.

As for Great Britain, of course they now kinda lack a casus belli, and indeed no German invasion of Belgium could mean that neutrality sentiment takes the upper hand. But at the same time GB is allied to France, so its just as likely (or IMO even likelier) that Britain still joins, over some other casus belli. However, the politcial discussions in Great Britain will probably quite delay war entry.

As for fighting in Russia, that didnt quite help the Russians IOTL, either What the Germans had feared is that the Russians would basically operate like against Napoleon, retreating ever more into their own territory, thereby overstretching German logistics. However, IOTL that didnt happen, and the Russians were unintelligently ever attacking. This was partly so to relieve pressure from the French, though, a factor not present here... still, while we might see less stupid Russian offensives, I dont think that even without the need to relieve pressure form theFrench the Russians will use the strategic depth of their land... (oh and Cornelius, the Eastern front was a wee bit too long and in too sparsely settled lands to have an as static trench warfare as in the west).

As for the war in the west, Alsace-Lorraine can easily hold. It did so IOTL, after all. Even if the French should be able to take the first natural barrier, the Vosgues, theres conviniently a second one right behind, the Rhine...

 

[Cornelius]

Italy will be CP or Entente, but it will never be neutral. Italy was the warsbig opportunist, it wanted to gain, no matter from what side. So, to decide side, either it gets bribed financially as IOTL, or it joins after a while the side that looks like its winning.

I wouldn't be so sure. The royal court and part of the goverment wanted the war for pride, but most of the people preferred peace. Without the Great Britain, Italy would have stayed neutral in the first years of war. What would have happened after is largely depending on the war evolution

As for Great Britain, of course they now kinda lack a casus belli, and indeed no German invasion of Belgium could mean that neutrality sentiment takes the upper hand. But at the same time GB is allied to France, so its just as likely (or IMO even likelier) that Britain still joins, over some other casus belli. However, the politcial discussions in Great Britain will probably quite delay war entry.

But the Great Britain did not have a formal alliance with France, otherwise they would have not needed the Belgium casus belli. It's perfectly possible that the war party could get the UK into the war, but they could also use their power to press Germany into peace (possible, especially if war in Russia doesn't go too well for germans).

oh and Cornelius, the Eastern front was a wee bit too long and in too sparsely settled lands to have an as static trench warfare as in the west

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I was talking about a static front as in lacking fast moving offensives, not trench warfare.

 

[David S Poepoe]

As for Great Britain, of course they now kinda lack a casus belli, and indeed no German invasion of Belgium could mean that neutrality sentiment takes the upper hand. But at the same time GB is allied to France, so its just as likely (or IMO even likelier) that Britain still joins, over some other casus belli. However, the politcial discussions in Great Britain will probably quite delay war entry.

Absolutely agree. Britain will be in the fairly quickly since it can't afford to allow Germany to dominate the continent. There have already been a series of convention and agreements with the French which the British would have to completely not honour. It is a question of geopolitics and its better that Britain remain allied with the Entente.

I also wouldn't put it past the British to pressure Belgium to permit France to swing thru its territory in order to hit Germany.

 

[Moltke]

Absolutely agree. Britain will be in the fairly quickly since it can't afford to allow Germany to dominate the continent. There have already been a series of convention and agreements with the French which the British would have to completely not honour. It is a question of geopolitics and its better that Britain remain allied with the Entente.

I agree with that but I'm not sure you would see the manpower get to the continent in time. The agreements and relationships forged in the few years pre-1914 made some kind of UK response certain. I think if that (The Brits slipping into war without a Belgium question) were the case you might see the British attempt to play their hand at trade, financial, and especially naval strategy firstly. Until France is directly attacked or under duress I'm not sure you'll see the British command and especially population send divisions in large numbers to France. And, I don't see any chance of any landing in Russia.

I also wouldn't put it past the British to pressure Belgium to permit France to swing thru its territory in order to hit Germany.

Hmmmm ... that's almost inviting the Germans in. It would have to be some kind of secret negotiations and troop movements and I'm not sure they could keep the Germans from getting word of it. It would help France's offensive options though ... and of course be very dangerous when the Germans turn West after laying out the Czar.

 

[Onkel Willie]

I'm not sure whether the British would fight at all if there's no decent casus belli. The balance of power is all they have and try explaining that to the people.

"Teh Germans have not attacked us but they r ev0hl and we want to preserve teh balance of powur so we'll attack them anyway in a bloody war that will kill millions and is otherwise useless."

 

[Paul MacQ]

Ok well what the Ottamans going to be doing in this Scenario , will they sit this one out or will they side with the Central Powers.
Russia getting squased and possibly making a few Boarder adjustments in the Caucasus. Or would the Grudge against Italy over Lybia be too much is to say We will stay out of this also.
Would they close off the Black sea to the Russians in in ether case

 

[The Sandman]

IIRC, isn't the real issue with respect to the British that if they sit the war out for more than a few months, Ireland is going to erupt and Britain will thereafter be too distracted to enter the war?

 

[Michael B]

Italy will be CP or Entente, but it will never be neutral. Italy was the warsbig opportunist, it wanted to gain, no matter from what side. So, to decide side, either it gets bribed financially as IOTL, or it joins after a while the side that looks like its winning.

The Entente has more to offer because if it wins it can offer Trieste.

As for Great Britain, of course they now kinda lack a casus belli, and indeed no German invasion of Belgium could mean that neutrality sentiment takes the upper hand. But at the same time GB is allied to France, so its just as likely (or IMO even likelier) that Britain still joins, over some other casus belli. However, the politcial discussions in Great Britain will probably quite delay war entry.

Even before she enters Great Britain can offer war loans and munitions for the French to buy. That would partially offset her not being a full

IIRC isn't the real issue with respect to the British that if they sit the war out for more than a few months, Ireland is going to erupt and Britain will thereafter be too distracted to enter the war?

It would also give them the opportunity to land a lot heavier on the Irish. One effect then could be a united Ireland under British rule!

 

[Peter Hillock]

Imperial Germany would not be out for complete conquest just some territory adjustments along the border. I don't think a Brest-Litovsk repeat is the only course of action.

The expanded German war aims of 1918, which antagonized everyone, were apparently a product of the long grueling war: the Germans felt they deserved more, having sacrificed so much. So maybe they could have forced peace terms which satisfied them but didn't make the British fear for their own strategic survival.