How can you plausibly get a WWI 'East first' strategy?

The "Germany goes on the offensive in the east, defensive in the west" has started to become a WWI AH trope around here for a while. I admit I submitted to this as well, not really thinking about it (forgive me, I am but a benighted noob). But after doing some more reading, it becomes clear "East first" was never a serious German strategy. But what would the steps required to make this plausibly happen?
 
As I understand it, there never was an "East First" strategy that tilted the scales like the OTL one against France. At least not when France and Russia where concerned.
What I read as AH "East First" is more of a balanced one that uses the German advantages, ie. inner lines and counter attack, to achive its goals. At least that is what I got from the discussions and everything.

So to go there, you probably have to rise the stakes in the West. Like Britain being very clear about Belgium and also having more army to enforce it. Butterflies here galore... but you could get it. Or the Germans realize that the Russians may be faster in mobilisation and do something about it. For this you probably have to reshuffle the Generalstab as Moltke Jr. was very set in his plans.

So in all it Imo would not be that hard to construct a chain of events that lead to an "East First" that is more defensive in the beginning and counters the expected Franco-Russian offensives. How that will play out in the end, only the author would know. As it also needs a clear picture on how others react.

On the other hand, a tilting of resources towards Russia as on the OTL scale against France, Imo, is impossible as too much value was in the western parts of Germany that France could reach in short order. So the Germans will have to put more weight into the west even when they would decide to go East as a priority.
 
The "Germany goes on the offensive in the east, defensive in the west" has started to become a WWI AH trope around here for a while. I admit I submitted to this as well, not really thinking about it (forgive me, I am but a benighted noob). But after doing some more reading, it becomes clear "East first" was never a serious German strategy. But what would the steps required to make this plausibly happen?
1: Have Germany realize that they wont be back by Christmas
2: Earlier Haber-Bosch process to fix all ammunition worries, enabling a longer war in the first place
 
A big investment in railway engineers and support by the Germans.

You have to realise that Russia is big and it operates on a different gauge than the rest of European rails.

The size means supplies need to be distributed over large areas and the differing gague means you either need to regague everything or you need train engines that can't work in the rest of Europe.

You also need to have supply of track in case the Russians pull up railway lines when they retreat in order to stretch you economically.

Historically in 1914 and 1915 Germany deployed almost as much as they could supply effectively.

The more success Germany has the worse the logistics become as they need to support the army over greater distances.
 
East First is an ASB batshit crazy idea that lives around here because you can have the Germans win while keeping Britain neutral. This creates a world where Germany wins on land and Britain still rules the waves You will never get rid of it. Moltke made his reasoning clear: if you send enough forces East to do any good, you would so weaken the French front that defeat was inevitable

To get the Germans to even consider the idea:

1) cut the French army by 2/3s That way the Germans know that they or the Italians can hold against any French attack and then defeat them at their leisure

2) Spend huge sums upgrading the German railnet in the East. Its poorly developed and in OTl, they ran into all kinds of problems when fighting the Russians

3) Have Sweden, Romania and the Ottomans agree to fight only if the Germans strike at Russia
 

kernals12

Banned
If the Russians had finished their ambitious railroad scheme in Poland, the Germans would have no choice but to go after them first.
 
East First is an ASB batshit crazy idea that lives around here because you can have the Germans win while keeping Britain neutral. This creates a world where Germany wins on land and Britain still rules the waves You will never get rid of it. Moltke made his reasoning clear: if you send enough forces East to do any good, you would so weaken the French front that defeat was inevitable

To get the Germans to even consider the idea:

1) cut the French army by 2/3s That way the Germans know that they or the Italians can hold against any French attack and then defeat them at their leisure

2) Spend huge sums upgrading the German railnet in the East. Its poorly developed and in OTl, they ran into all kinds of problems when fighting the Russians

3) Have Sweden, Romania and the Ottomans agree to fight only if the Germans strike at Russia
Haven't you failed in half-a-dozen other threads to bring *any* argument for why going east equals automatic loss in the west? Beyond wild assertions that you are right and the others are wrong? And especially with the britons not getting in immediately?

I am still waiting for you to cough up the evidence for this one. After all, if it so trivial, why don't you provide a bit beyond wild assertions?
 
The whole use our mobilization speed advantage to beat the French before the Russians could mobilize was bad politics.

All Russia has to do to put Europe to war and flames is mobilize her army. For Russia and Austria mobilizing is just political escalation, for Germany its instant war.

Germany in 1914 doesn't need war. Its a large populous country with leads in industries like electronics and chemicals, The borderlands with mixed populations or German minorities are under her control, or they are in counties where Germans have high political status (Austria, even Russia).

Her longest boundaries are not in dispute (1815 Congress of Vienna), none of the powers want more Poles.

She has a colonial empire that is just starting to turn a profit in places after much sunk money invested.

Germany should have adopted a defensive strategy in both the east and west. She has a fearsome war reputation which can achieve much politically without having to use it. If the French and Russians fully mobilize and invade, Germany can defeat the invasion (likely Britain remains neutral).

Likely with such a strategy, the Serbian crisis ends with the Austrians in occupation of Belgrade (only) and an international conference.
 
Or the Germans realize that the Russians may be faster in mobilisation and do something about it. For this you probably have to reshuffle the Generalstab as Moltke Jr. was very set in his plans.

My idea for this is the Russians mobilize during the Second Balkan War. Mostly to flex their muscle and insure that their allies don't spin out of control. Germany watches and realizes the numbers they have on Russian mobilization are way off. Moltke may be stubborn, but I'm sure some of the German High Command would see reason.
 
Nicholas II seemed to understand how important having a developed rail system was for Russia. How about have the Russians accelerate their railroad building in Poland, the Germans realize this and upgrade their rail network in East Prussia and Poland in response. This, in combination with @BigDestiny 's Russian mobilization in the Balkans may be able to force Germany to change their plans.
 
The whole use our mobilization speed advantage to beat the French before the Russians could mobilize was bad politics.

All Russia has to do to put Europe to war and flames is mobilize her army. For Russia and Austria mobilizing is just political escalation, for Germany its instant war.

Germany in 1914 doesn't need war. Its a large populous country with leads in industries like electronics and chemicals, The borderlands with mixed populations or German minorities are under her control, or they are in counties where Germans have high political status (Austria, even Russia).

Her longest boundaries are not in dispute (1815 Congress of Vienna), none of the powers want more Poles.

She has a colonial empire that is just starting to turn a profit in places after much sunk money invested.

Germany should have adopted a defensive strategy in both the east and west. She has a fearsome war reputation which can achieve much politically without having to use it. If the French and Russians fully mobilize and invade, Germany can defeat the invasion (likely Britain remains neutral).

Likely with such a strategy, the Serbian crisis ends with the Austrians in occupation of Belgrade (only) and an international conference.
You just made an excellent argument against German war guilt. What country actually had the most to GAIN from a general European war in 1914...France.
 
You just made an excellent argument against German war guilt. What country actually had the most to GAIN from a general European war in 1914...France.

France had the most to gain, but still a lot to lose. They weren't plotting for war (perhaps individuals were eager when presented with the favorable opportunity).

The Germans deserve the war guilt clause, they had an ad hoc vacillating, lets make everyone mad foreign policy before the war, they DOWed everybody first, invaded Belgium, did first use of nasty weapons like gas, flame throwers, unrestricted submarine warfare, they and their allies committed some ugly atrocities, they certainly had opportunities to stop the war from happening (agree to a conference and stop at Belgrade and its all over). It was probably just politicians and generals making really bad decisions, but with that level of bad decisions, comes heavy blame.
 
East First is an ASB batshit crazy idea that lives around here because you can have the Germans win while keeping Britain neutral. This creates a world where Germany wins on land and Britain still rules the waves You will never get rid of it. Moltke made his reasoning clear: if you send enough forces East to do any good, you would so weaken the French front that defeat was inevitable

I have never read a quote from Moltke to that effect or even remotely close to it, source please. I have read multiple quotes from Moltke to the effect of worrying about multiyear blood bath.

To get the Germans to even consider the idea:

1) cut the French army by 2/3s That way the Germans know that they or the Italians can hold against any French attack and then defeat them at their leisure

2) Spend huge sums upgrading the German railnet in the East. Its poorly developed and in OTl, they ran into all kinds of problems when fighting the Russians

3) Have Sweden, Romania and the Ottomans agree to fight only if the Germans strike at Russia

Please explain the various General Staff studies and official war plans from 1870s on to 1913 to fight Russia and France either simultaneously or Russia in isolation? These plans are very well attested to in the historic record. You assertions look very questionable with the existence of Russia first school of through in the German army dating back to Motlke the Elder.

Michael
 
Back to the original question. To me path of least resistance is to have someone like Goltz become Chief of General staff. He favored ideas such as fortifying Franco-German border, increased conscription rates and going east.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colmar_Freiherr_von_der_Goltz

Once the S Plan gained favor in 1905 on German made changes to its railroad building that people noticed to increase speed of deployment across from Belgium. If Goltz ends up Chief of General staff you will see investments in defenses along Franco German border along with more railroad bridges over Elbe, etc.

Michael
 
Back to the original question. To me path of least resistance is to have someone like Goltz become Chief of General staff. He favored ideas such as fortifying Franco-German border, increased conscription rates and going east.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colmar_Freiherr_von_der_Goltz

Once the S Plan gained favor in 1905 on German made changes to its railroad building that people noticed to increase speed of deployment across from Belgium. If Goltz ends up Chief of General staff you will see investments in defenses along Franco German border along with more railroad bridges over Elbe, etc.

Michael
Reading the wiki article, it seems he would be a good choice. He understood that trying to quickly beat France was unlikely. He admired the Ottomans and Asian peoples (which might help the Ottoman army want to join the Central Powers?), but would it make him think a Russian offensive is a good idea?

Wilhelm picking Goltz over Moltke seems unlikely however (Wilhelm and Moltke were good buddies), so it looks you'll have to kill off Moltke around 1907-1908, to give Goltz time to enact whatever changes he might make.
 
Maybe if there was something in Russia to provide a target worthy of 3 rapid mobilising armies Germany would go on the offensive in the East. Perhaps Russia's plan 19 would put 3 or 4 Russian Armies on the East Prussian border in 2 weeks, then the Germans would have something for their Armies to do other than wander around Poland for a month after defeating the Russian 1st and 2nd Armies.
 

Redcoat

Banned
The whole use our mobilization speed advantage to beat the French before the Russians could mobilize was bad politics.

All Russia has to do to put Europe to war and flames is mobilize her army. For Russia and Austria mobilizing is just political escalation, for Germany its instant war.

Germany in 1914 doesn't need war. Its a large populous country with leads in industries like electronics and chemicals, The borderlands with mixed populations or German minorities are under her control, or they are in counties where Germans have high political status (Austria, even Russia).

Her longest boundaries are not in dispute (1815 Congress of Vienna), none of the powers want more Poles.

She has a colonial empire that is just starting to turn a profit in places after much sunk money invested.

Germany should have adopted a defensive strategy in both the east and west. She has a fearsome war reputation which can achieve much politically without having to use it. If the French and Russians fully mobilize and invade, Germany can defeat the invasion (likely Britain remains neutral).

Likely with such a strategy, the Serbian crisis ends with the Austrians in occupation of Belgrade (only) and an international conference.
Wonder how that post-war situation would turn out
 
Wilhelm picking Goltz over Moltke seems unlikely however (Wilhelm and Moltke were good buddies), so it looks you'll have to kill off Moltke around 1907-1908, to give Goltz time to enact whatever changes he might make.

Wilhelm also could be influenced by people its often suggested that reading Mahan's "The Influence of Sea Power upon History" had a huge impact on Wilhelm. What if Wilhelm read Goltz's 'Das Volk in Waffen' / The Nation in Arms and ended up having a similar response? The book called for the total mobilization of a nation in time of war with the attitude that only fittest nation could survive a future general conflict. If Kaiser Bill gets obsessed with such ideas who better to carry them out than Goltz?

Michael
 
Top