Germany wins WW1 in 1914

Arminius

Banned
The scenario in which I see Germany winning the First World War is that it is not a world war at all. By 1914 Germany's High Command realized that the Schlieffen Plan would not work, it wasn't feasible. So imagine this:

Germany reacts to Russian mobilization the same, by mobilizing its own forces on 30 July, 1914. However the plan is now not to invade Belgium and then swing into France as the Schlieffen Plan calls for, but to simply fortify the borders between Germany and Belgium/France, dig in along the border in defensive positions, move up troops and artillery, and use observation aircraft flying along the border but not into French or Belgian airspace. Thus Britain is deprived of a legal reason to enter the war (protecting Belgian neutrality since it has not been violated) and the French must now contemplate whether to declare war, or if they did after 31 July, to act on it, since it would now be obvious that Germany was not going to invade). In this scenario, Germany still declares war on Russia on 1 August, and France has a treaty with Russia to enter a war if a third party attacks either France or Russia. However, they had this treaty a decade earlier and ignored it, when Japan attacked Russian forces at Port Aruthur China in 1904 without a declaration of war. This was because Great Britain had a treaty with Japan of a similiar nature. Britain was not obligated to enter the Russo-Japanese War since Japan was the aggressor, but if France declared war on Japan as treaty called for, Britain had to enter against France. So the French sat on their hands, not wanting a war with the British Navy. If Germany had simply erected defensive positions along the border with France and Belgium, the French would have sat this one out too; despite a desire for revenge for the Franco-Prussian War and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine.

An Eastern Front only war would have, in my view, resulted in the inevitable defeat of Imperial Russia and Serbia, with Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary demanding territorial concessions in the Ukraine and elsewhere, and the extradition of Gavril Prinicip to Austria for execution. A Central Powers victory in an Eastern Front only war would also have necessarily meant the extermination of the Black Hand terrorist group that supported Princip and was responsible for other terrorist acts against Austro-Hungarian rule.

Two defeats within a decade might well have led to a forced abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, but if the war only lasted, as I think it would have, until perhaps fall of 1915, this may not necessarily have been the case. If he abdicated in favor of a more reform minded relative, instead of a regent for his son, then perhaps the kind of democratic reforms that Tsar Alexander II had intended might have been instituted. But if the war is not prolonged for 3 years, and the shortages that came with it, then perhaps Nicholas could have staved off abdication. I tend to doubt it, but it might not necessarily have meant the end of the monarchy, but rather a constitutional monarchy like Britain.

This would also mean no war in Africa, no loss of German colonies there, no fighting in any Belgian colonies or between British and German forces in Africa (a neglected theater of study for The Great War). The German High Seas Fleet is intact, and ready to respond to any Japanese moves against German possessions in the Pacific. There would have been no Australian moves against German Neu Guinea or New Zealand attack against German Somoa. With the monarchy secure in Berlin and Vienna, and quite possibly in Rome (it would seem less likely that Mussolini's fascists could come to power), that would leave only Japan as a military-run dictatorship. The history of China is likely very different, and if Japan does try to take German possessions, she would have to face an intact German High Seas Fleet, as well as the German U-boat force. And quite possibly a combined German-French force, or even more nations against her.

With no unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic, no involvement by Great Britain and supply by the U.S., there is no Lusitania incident nor a Zimmerman telegram, no American involvement. Britain does not incur the massive debt of the war, nor does France. If Japan enters the war to steal Germany's Pacific Possessions, she does so as a naked aggressor, since Britain is not involved. Japan may covet those islands, but is hardly likely to enter on the side of Russia. If she does invade Germany's islands, then the Kaiser can make the pitch to France that what is stop them from going after French Polynesia at some point, and can tell his cousin in London that since Japan grabbed the German islands in the Marshalls and Carolines and their concession at Tsingtao, China, what's to stop them going after Hong Kong, Sinapore, Malaya, even India? And the Kaiser could whisper in Wilson's ear about the threat to Guam, the Philippines and even Hawaii. Join us in wiping out this threat to our possessions. World War II becomes less of a possibility. The Lusitania and Brittanic are remembered as opulent ocean liners, they have a long service life, Adolph Hitler shuffles back to Austria to paint water colors, Brown Brothers-Harriman and Prescott Bush never get their hands on the Hamburg-America Line. Maybe the Cox-Roosevelt ticket wins the 1920 election, no Teapot Dome/Veterans Bureau/Alien Property scandals, maybe no Stock Market Crash and no Great Depression. And my grandfather doesn't get hit with poison gas in 1918 and doesn't die at age 44 in 1939.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the Board

But seriously, Dude a Three Year Necro for your first post, please don't necropost threads, if one is dead over a year then create a new one to discuss the topic
 

Arminius

Banned
Well, dude, I came across this website because of a search for alternate history of the First World War. So I decided to chip in my two cents. Why start a new thread on a subject that is existing, so that people have to repost the same thing if they want to contribute to it? If that's some kind of rule here, it seems a little petty.
 
Well, dude, I came across this website because of a search for alternate history of the First World War. So I decided to chip in my two cents. Why start a new thread on a subject that is existing, so that people have to repost the same thing if they want to contribute to it? If that's some kind of rule here, it seems a little petty.
Well it is more so people don't have to wade through threads they were not around for, or so old arguments and such don't get restarted

And this is pretty damn old, as in no activity for three years, three people involved in this thread were banned and a bunch of the others are inactive so most people have not seen this thread

Forum administration would prefer you to start a new thread so we can start from the beginning, and it is in the rules as such

Threads on popular topics such as this appear every few months or less so wait and ye shall receive
 

BlondieBC

Banned
You need to think about what POD make it work in 1914. Germany had bigger army, A-H held against the Russians, Russians mobilized slowly, some hugely dumb move by a French army, etc. The POD will be huge.

But ok, Paris falls, France makes peace. Britain is untouched. The war continues. Britain at a minimum will try to take all the German colonies before making a peace offer, and there is some possibility the war drags on for decades. After France falls, the UK can't beat Germany on land (at least without conscription in India) and Germany can't defeat the UK at sea (at least without a decade plus of war). So a lot come down to how the negotiations go, and is both sides willing to compromise?

I know the peacetime French army was bigger, as their basic service term was longer, but the wartime fully mobilised army? That doesn't make any sense if Germany's population was 1/3 larger. Where they that bad planners even in WW1?

France had a bigger active duty army, but once the parts in the Colonies was subtracted, Germany had more troops in the early days of the war.

One question: Is Paris completely indefensible?

I know it fell without a fight in WW2, but in the Franco-Prussian war it famously held out for months.

It always seems to be taken as writ that there would be no battle for Paris, victory on the Marne would be enough, but is that actually true?

Most likely Paris is a long, hard Urban battle. Think Stalingrad or Moscow, but the Germans win in this ATL. There were defenses in Paris, and Paris would have been reinforced. Germany had some real supply issues, so even if the Germans crush the French at the Marne, it would be very hard to attack Paris immediately. Their only rail head was in France, south of Ypres, so it was probably 100-150 miles by wagon to supply the army.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Oh, undoubtedly it would be, especially if there is no UK land commitment to drain resources from the navy. British shipyards could build fast when they needed to so in this scenario we'd see a lot of new construction. More submarines and destroyers for the Channel, more capital ships for the Grand Fleet. I haven't got the exact data to hand but Britain still had the biggest shipbuilding industry in the world in 1914 - IIRC (may be wrong) something like 3/4 of the world's ships were built in British yards.

Two million tons per year. No more than 2/3 of the world capacity, from memory, it was the following:

Germany 0.6 million prewar, 0.3 war
UK 2 million tons
Rest of World 1 million tons.

The issue is that the UK is running flat out, so building more of one ship means less of the other. So yes, the UK could build an extra hundred subs per year, or 4-8 more dreadnoughts, but then there is less merchant shipping.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Im not so sure about 1918. Without the Americans i have a strong feeling that the Allies might still win; the British Army had recently been supplemented with the remaining youth of its country, and indeed the British Army really pioneered the use of coordinated attacks (Tanks, Planes and INfantry working together). If you look at some of the US Army battles, their losses are quite high. Granted, they were apart from the other Allies in that they were more inexperienced, but i think that the British and the French could pull off a victory. Correct me if im wrong though.


Unlikely a win. Without the USA, the Entente have 20-25% fewer supplies starting early 1917. The Entente having few shells means 16% or so fewer German losses. Artillery does 75% of the killing. (Take 22.5% fewer shells, and multiple by .75 for this factor alone).

Without the USA there is also 500,000-1,000,000 fewer troops in France in 1918. Many of the troops used in the hundred day offensive are just holding the lines elsewhere, combined with much worse supplies, there is no major gains in the 100 day offensive, so the war drags into 1919.


So basically, as a ballpark you get the following:

1) 200K more German soldiers (the ones not wounded in OTL). Germany has 5 corp more reserves of experience soldiers.
2) 25 fewer Entente corps.
3) 20-25 fewer supplies for remaining Entente units.

Germany is too weak to break Entente. A-H may be collapsing. France/England too weak to push Entente out of France. A white peace is most likely result. Small chance of Entente or German victory, but it will be due to internal revolution in France or Germany, not battle field victory.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Britain was doing a hell of a lot in 1915; Gallipoli, Mesopotamia, other colonial campaigns, Neuve Chapelle and other western front offensives, building up the new army, beating a shell shortage, modifying old and naval guns to equip the new armies. It was worse in 1916 with the massive efforts on the Somme. All of this kept Britain heavily if not fully occupied IOTL.

If Germany was established on the Channel Britain would have a very different focus. It would have to secure it's much longer supply lines to the BEF, which would eat up considerable resources such as shipping, rail capacity, coal and manpower. It would have to fight and win the coastal artillery/mine warfare/light surface combats/through channel shipping campaign in the Dover st narrows. For starters that would use up the old and naval guns which IOTL were used to equip the new army, and most probably many of the men. More men, steel and fuel would be devoted to mining and minesweeping, an ongoing task which would rely on success of other forces if it was to clear mines within range of German guns. Similarly large numbers of small warships would be needed to gaurd any merchant shipping, minesweepers, monitors which were operating closer to the German held coast or transiting the narrows. On top of this mundane but unignorable garbage would be the possibility of dramatic capital ship action in the Channel or even the western approaches. Briain's great captial ship strength would have to be split to gaurd against this possibility because the consequences could be so dire.

Britain would have to win this battle, and I believe that it would win the battle. Eventually gaining full control of the sea right up to the beach itself, to the extent of conducting landings behind German lines as was planned IOTL 1917. But IOTL it took almost 3 years to do the same on a smaller and less dangerous scale. Could it be done in less time on a much bigger scale? Could it be done at all without diversion of considerable resources which IOTL were used at Gallipoli, Nueve Chapelle, Somme, Paschedale, Cambrai and finally the offensive of late 1918? Could the other Entente powers take up the slack?

In your scenario, the UK likely use the Somme as the defensive line. Gallipoli does not happen, bringing 4-16 extra divisions to France. Add in the 220,000 losses at Gallipoli, and a bit more urgency by the British, and 50+ Divisions in France by the end of 1915 is doable. It is a bit strange, but the big winner of the Germans gaining the channel coast is the Ottoman Empire, which now will be able to gain the initiative and will have plenty of troops for all needs. There is enough troops to keep the Arabs from revolting. By late 1915, the Russian front stabilizes, and likely is pushed back in later years. Mesopotamia goes better.

The British would switch ports, and build the Dover barrage at a point farther west. I like the tip of Normandy as the defensive line. The Germans will not send capital ships to the channel, it would be a death trap.

The British would think they had to win the battle, and the "western focus" leaders would win, but in reality, the UK and France would merely need to defeat the German army on land to win the war.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
...

With these forces available I think that Germany could have captured Amiens, and used the Somme as it's defensive line to the channel. Handily enough this would have shortened the German line and given them possesion of that bit more French industry.



As for British plans to defend the Channel, did the British have plans to deploy a 60 division army, each division with unprecedented artillery power, to France and sustain it for 4 years? No they did not. But that they could do so was because by the 12th of November 1914 it had become obvious that containing the German navy would be easy, the Dover straight could be patrolled by the oldest and least powerful destroyers the RN had, and the supply lines to the BEF would be both very short and very secure.

If Germany took the Channel coast the Brits would have to react, implement their Channel defence plans to a greater extent than IOTL, even if Germany only expended the same effort over the whole coast as the did IOTL in Belgium. More importantly by making Dieppe or Le Harve the closest usable ports to the BEF the shortest sea journey would be 3 or 4 times longer than OTL and longer rail journeys within France. This alone would mean less divisions in France in 1916, to man these channel defences and long supply lines. Again I reiterate Britain's manpower and industry were not infinite, they can't do everything. Bigger Channel defence and longer supply lines to the BEF can be counted in less divisions in the BEF itself, even before Germany takes advantage of the opportunites it finds itself presented with.

I think holding the entire Somme line is about the best the Germans can do in 1914 with major prewar changes or a POD on the Eastern Front. Falkenhayn was extremely worried about the lack of reserves. He likely would have either used the divisions as additional reserves, on the Eastern Front, or on the Southern Front. He wrote a book that goes through his thinking month by month, and it is free online.

The British will likely cancel Gallipolli, and move the troops to the Somme, so by the time Falkenhayn turns west in 1916, there will be more not fewer Entente divisions in France. Now Germany is doing better, but, in and of itself, it is not a war winner. The butterflies may win the war, but you have to actually write a detailed time line to figure these out what these are.

Now the British will do another reaction, which is move their smaller ships around. They have more subs than the Germans, so I see a lot of them and the torpedo boats being moved to the channel to skirmish with the Germans. Betty may not do some raids on the German Coast. Maybe a squadron or two of pre-dreadnoughts in Portsmouth. The British have ships to waste.
 
This is the difficulty of digging up 3 1/2 year old threads. I was making a point with Bill Garvin, who hasn`t posted here for over 3 years now.

Anyway I will restate my point again. The Strategic offensive/Tactical defensive is the strongest form of warfare, Germany took northern France and parked itself on 1/4 of the French economy and bled France white as they tired to take it back against inferior numbers/strength of Germans. If Germany managed to park itself on the Channel coast then it would be conducting Strategic offensive/Tactical defensive warfare against Britain. Britain would have to build all sorts of monitors, shore batteries, minelayers, minesweepers and light combattants to thoroughly defeat considerably weaker German forces. This will have to come at the expense of efforts elsewhere, yet these efforts are necessary in and of themselves and can`t be lightly abandonded.
 
Germany won't win the war in 1914 even if the Schlieffen Plan's assumptions hold valid. That plan was just to take out France, it said nothing about what was to happen next with Russia. And unless the Germans replace humans with orcs they're not going to carry out the Schlieffen Plan as it was originally written.
 

Arminius

Banned
This is the difficulty of digging up 3 1/2 year old threads. I was making a point with Bill Garvin, who hasn`t posted here for over 3 years now.

Anyway I will restate my point again. The Strategic offensive/Tactical defensive is the strongest form of warfare, Germany took northern France and parked itself on 1/4 of the French economy and bled France white as they tired to take it back against inferior numbers/strength of Germans. If Germany managed to park itself on the Channel coast then it would be conducting Strategic offensive/Tactical defensive warfare against Britain. Britain would have to build all sorts of monitors, shore batteries, minelayers, minesweepers and light combattants to thoroughly defeat considerably weaker German forces. This will have to come at the expense of efforts elsewhere, yet these efforts are necessary in and of themselves and can`t be lightly abandonded.

Well, frankly folks, I hadn't paid attention to the dates on the thread, only the subject matter. As I said, I came across this site in a search engine quest for alternate histories on the outcome of the war which, with the possible exception of Lincoln's War, interests me the most, World War 1, and that is why I posted my thoughts in this thread.
 
Well, frankly folks, I hadn't paid attention to the dates on the thread, only the subject matter. As I said, I came across this site in a search engine quest for alternate histories on the outcome of the war which, with the possible exception of Lincoln's War, interests me the most, World War 1, and that is why I posted my thoughts in this thread.

Don`t panic, nobody knows where you live, so nobody`s coming around with a wheel-brace to kneecap you for it.

But anyway I am still in love with the idea that winning the Race to the Sea is Germany`s most realistic shot at winning WW1.
 
The original question asked what would have happened had Germany defeated France in 1914. Naturally the discussion has been dominated by the argument that Germany could not have defeated France in 1914. The detail has focused on flaws in the Schlieffen Plan (and perhaps doubts whether there ever was a Schlieffen Plan). All good stuff.

It is fairly clear that Germany did not have sufficient superiority over France, Britain and Belgium in any of numbers, equipment or training to make a decisive victory likely. The French reserve divisions were not committed to the initial Battle of the Frontiers, so the French were likely to grow stronger as August turned into September. The French had the advantage of falling back on a better railway system and a number of forts while the Germans suffered increasing logistical problems (which could have been even worse had the Belgians demolished tunnels etc.). All this makes the OTL result quite probable. It is not actually clear whether the Schlieffen Plan was a bad idea because it did capture part of Northern France but we need to know whether the diplomatic consequences of the invasion of Belgium were more significant than those gains.

However, it does seem clear that the Battle of the Frontiers could have resulted in a much worse defeat for France than OTL. Around 21st -22nd August Joffre was ordering his 3rd, 4th and 5th Armies to attack northwards against superior German forces. If we imagine that the German right wing had been only a little stronger but equipped with more cavalry and aircraft and with rather better methods of sending information and commands (more radios with better codes), it is not too hard to imagine the complete destruction of perhaps the BEF and French 5th Army, especially if v. Kluck's 1st Army had been able to swing West of the BEF and the other armies had been directed to close up on v. Kluck rather than the 1st Army being pulled towards the 2nd as OTL (I am moving most of the German Armies West so that 2nd opposes the BEF front, 3rd opposes 5th and 4th opposes French 5th and 4th Armies, leaving the German 3rd Army to defend most of the Ardennes).

OTL tended to show that armies could generally retreat faster than they could be pursued but it does seem possible that Joffre might not have ordered a retreat until too late. Of course, it might have gone wrong for the Germans because allowing the French to advance in the Ardennes might have allowed the Belgians to hold Namur.

Even a catastrophic Battle of the Frontiers might not lead to a French collapse because the French had so many reserves to commit. It would probably rule out any Marne type victory leaving Germany holding much more of France and the loss of the BEF might cripple British plans for Army expansion by removing the experienced NCOs and officers. The effect of surrounding significant Anglo-French forces would also force some delay, so that when Germany renewed its attack more of the Belgian rail network was operating.

Thus I am going to argue that the original question
Moltke is out of the picture, the Schlieffen Plan works successfully and the Germans knock out Paris right away. What happens? Feel free to talk about the events immediately following the fall of Paris, the 20th century as a whole (no protracted Great War, no stab in the back theory, no Hitler? No Holocaust? no war time funds to drag America out of the Depression, no Marshall Plan?) or even what the world would look like today and beyond.
is valid because a German victory was possible even if unlikely.

I would also argue that it is very hard to answer:p.
 
Top