How well can France do in an alternate WW1?

Let's say that France, Russia, Bulgaria, and Serbia go against the United Kingdom, Germany, Greece, and Austria-Hungary in 1914, and France takes the initiative and sends troops first into Germany. What's France's route? Through Belgium at all or straight through Alsace-Lorraine? How far could France get? What's the best it could do before Germany and the British turn the tide? Do we still get trench warfare, poison gas, stalemate?

How much does Russia drain away from the west by its attacks? What would France and Russia's war aims be in this scenario, territorially speaking?

Any ideas or thoughts are appreciated, given the initial setup.

Anything is possible, say the Russians do the germany first plan. They have a nice sitzkreig for the first few months with the moribund austrians, while their 4 as opposed to 2 armies run over the german 8th, take east Prussia, Posen, and Silesia, and drive to the Elbe by October. Maybe the collapse in the east affects German morale enough that the ATL Marne analogue becomes a rout, and Germany sues for peace.

Given the short war every one expected, France gets Alsace Lorraine, Russia gets Galicia. That is pretty much it.
 
The French plan was to break through Alsace and Lorraine, and move north along the Rhine. All the Germans to the west would be cut off. The French heard about the German plan to go through Belgium, and said "All the better! More Germans to cut off!" This sentiment was repeated when very large German forces were reported in Belgium.

Which would probably work if Asterix favourite Druid paranomix had given the entire French army double ration of magic potion. People get away with options so wildly off the mark in real life and we shout ASB at one another for small exaggerations...
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Anything is possible, say the Russians do the germany first plan. They have a nice sitzkreig for the first few months with the moribund austrians, while their 4 as opposed to 2 armies run over the german 8th, take east Prussia, Posen, and Silesia, and drive to the Elbe by October. Maybe the collapse in the east affects German morale enough that the ATL Marne analogue becomes a rout, and Germany sues for peace.

Given the short war every one expected, France gets Alsace Lorraine, Russia gets Galicia. That is pretty much it.

No,

First, War Plan Germany called for a defensive war.

Second, with the UK on Germany side, Germany has time on her side. Germany will send an extra army east to defend against the Russians, and allow the UK time to get mobilized.

Third, by not attacking A-H, A-H has an extra 500K or so men, many more trains, more food, etc. Russia will be counter attacked by A-H at some point.

WW1 was a close war where a minor power switching sides (Romania, Bulgaria, Sweden) could have decided the war. ANY major power switching sides makes it a clear win for the side getting the extra help.
 
I think you mean War plan G, which assumed a massive eastern attack by Germany. It was clear that this was not going to happen by 1910, and was replaced by Plan A, which was then modified to plan 19 by Denikin, which was the 2 army assault into east Prussia. It was suggested by i think Grand Duke Nikolai, although i will have to look that up, my sources are not here, that Plan 19 be reinforced to 4 armies instead of 2. This was decided against as it was clear Conrad would be attacking towards Warsaw.

As he in fact did, poorly, and the Russian counterstroke stove him in. having the Russians change the plan, to merely hold against Austria, while going all out on Germany seems plausible to me.

Of course, changing the circumstance of 1914 so that there is any conceivable chance that Germany and Britain are on the same side involves so many butterflies that there will be no Great War, not as we know it anyway.






No,

First, War Plan Germany called for a defensive war.

Second, with the UK on Germany side, Germany has time on her side. Germany will send an extra army east to defend against the Russians, and allow the UK time to get mobilized.

Third, by not attacking A-H, A-H has an extra 500K or so men, many more trains, more food, etc. Russia will be counter attacked by A-H at some point.

WW1 was a close war where a minor power switching sides (Romania, Bulgaria, Sweden) could have decided the war. ANY major power switching sides makes it a clear win for the side getting the extra help.
 

nastle

Banned
The french did take the offensive, its called "battle of frontiers" and it was a dismal failure
german army of 1914 had too much firepower in defensive there is NO WAY any army in 1914 would have succeeded against them
lets look at the numbers
french 4000 mobile 75s , 200 or so mobile howitzers, 75s firing 20 rpm is purely theoratical ( can supply keep up with rate of fire ?) :D
german 5500 mobile 77s , 900 mobile 105 howitzers , 400 mobile 150s and 210 210s mobile not to mention minenwerfers and MGs which are more numerous than any other army.
The lanscape rolling hills and forests suit the defender

French did not lack bravery but had no doctrine or means to overcome the german army in 1914
 
prepared positions vs field armies

No Army in 1914 was prepared to attack modern defensive positions. (Ofensive firepower was overrated and defensive firepower was underrated in peace time planning). The French OTL attacks were expected and doomed. Attacking the flank of a moving field army was however the exact manouvre everybody had practiced for in all the large scale field exercises.
Basically an earlier, larger Marne. That the French could do.
 
change French tactics

As others have already said, there was no way that any side was going to win a quick battlefield victory in 1914 as all the advantages were with the defence. France was at an even greater disadvantage than the Germans and British in that respect because in 1914 they had a tactical doctrine that was fixated on the offensive. Their modus operandi in 1914 was to assault the enemy, with elan and courage meant to sweep the enemy aside. An illustration of this is their use of the old blue and red uniform, helpful for maintaining morale in the age of musketry and the bayonet but like a flashing "shoot me" sign when charging a machine gun nest.

So, having the French somehow anticipate the nature of modern warfare better than anyone else and so adopt their tactics accordingly to focus on the advantages of being on the defense (hindsight is wonderful of course) won't win them the war but would leave their army in much better shape for the attritional phase to come. In OTL they never really recovered from the slaughter of the first mobile phase of the war, avoid that and they will be more likely to be a cohesive army through 1917. Then hope to bleed the enemy through 3-4 years of meatgrinding attrition until they've had enough and agree to a peace treaty to French advatage.

In addition, try to conquer as many enemy (German and British depending on your scenario) colonies as possible in western Africa so they've got something to bargain with at the peace talks. However, as others point out if the Germans and British ally then in the long run France will very likely lose regardless of tactics used.
 
The thing is, with Britain and Germany in together, Belgium is going to be in the mix as well, which puts the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region very close to the front line.
 
Top