No Schlieffen Plan in 1914.

What changes, major and minor, occur in World War One if Germany does not implement the Schlieffen Plan, but instead attacks only across the Franco-German border, between Switzerland and Luxembourg? This gives them less of a chance (none, really...) to perform a grand outflanking maneuver in the opening stages, but also concentrates their forces more for a drive on Paris.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
What's the strategic goal ? ... just ... 'capture the flag' aka get Paris ?

Such kind of goals were already (mostly) outdated in 1870/71.
THE startegic goal must/had be to dissable/capture/crush the oponents military forces. That at least had already materialized in most general staffs thinking at this time.
 
What's the strategic goal ? ... just ... 'capture the flag' aka get Paris ?

I would imagine it would be to smash the French Army in decisive battle before it can be fully mobilized. Same goal as the Schlieffen Plan, just done more directly.

A key difference to note here, of course, is that Belgian neutrality has not been violated.

To capture Paris would have been a great humiliation against the French, but honestly not necessary. That said, threatening Paris could have been used to draw in French forces to a decisive engagement.
 
French mobilization was actually faster than the German, and they concentrated along the border with Germany, so "strike the French faster than they can mobilize" doesn't work.

This is not to say that forgoing the invasion of Belgium, but still concentrating in the West is a bad idea. Its valid, but its at first glance it is the worst of the three options available:

1. Strike through Belgium, either against Paris or the French rear, as they tried historically.

2. Defensive in the West and try to get something going in the East (objectives would be limited).

3. Go through the fortresses along the French-German border.

Now #2 actually was considered, but you are committing to fighting a long war, which the German leadership didn't think they could fight, due to the problems of importing critical war materials. I've never read that #3 was given much consideration.

It helps to look at where the armies were after mobilization. Armies varied in size, but if you just assume ten divisions per army you are not far off:

FRENCH GERMAN BORDER

3 German (5,6,7) vs. 4 French (1,2,3,4)


ARDENNES/ LUXEMBOURG

3 German (3,4,5) vs. 1 French (5)


LOWER RHINE

2 German (1,2). This was their strike force. When they went into Belgium they faced the Belgium army and the BEF


EAST PRUSSIA

1 German (8) vs. 2 Russian (1,2) with another one on the way


GALICIA/ RUTHENIA

3 Austro-Hungarian (1,3,4) vs. 4 Russian (3,4,5,8) with at least one more on the way


SERBIA/ elsewhere

The Austro-Hungarians planned to concentrate what amounted to 2 and a half armies against the Serbs, the 2nd, the 5th, and the 6th, basically the Bosnia garrison, being the half. In the event they routed the 2nd to Galicia, too late to take part in the opening campaigns.

So what gives the flexibility in the German plans are the 1st and 2nd Armies, which are their largest. They don't necessarily have to use them against Belgium. The Belgian army isn't going anywhere, and the BEF won't necessarily be committed right away otherwise. They should be employed where they can do the most good. Parts of the group of the 3,4, and 5 group can be added to this, but at least one of these has to be kept on the Belgian border in case the French try something.

Logistically, its feasible for the Germans to rail two corps to completely different front. They had doubts they could do this in August 1914, but in the event did this during the war several times.

Are hammering against a narrow fortified front, against the biggest opposing concentration of armies, really the best option for the 1st and 2nd Armies? It would seem even doing nothing with them and keeping them in reserve would have been a better option.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
I would imagine it would be to smash the French Army in decisive battle before it can be fully mobilized.
... a decisive, opponing forces smashing battle on a quite narrow battlefield between two heavily fortified lines :
on the french side with numerous fortified areas Sedan via Verdun - Toul - Epinal to Belfort
on the german side from Thionville (Diedenhofen) - Metz Saarburg to Straßbourg (lesser also the Moulhouse area)

Sry, but ... No Go.
This would just become a massive, senseless slaughter with mountains of corpses piling up between these two line.


Same goal as the Schlieffen Plan, just done more directly.
The strategic goal of the so-called Schlieffen-plan west was :
by a fast move cature and crush the french army between the fast right wing as a hammer and the inforced fortress line mentioned above as the anvil
and then
move east ASAP to beat - somehow - the main enemy : Russia.

Please don't forget : even for Schlieffen Russia was the main enemy to beat, the enemy of uncounted nighmarish dreams of prussian generals since ... the 1870/71 victory (?), the nigtmare that drove Caprivi in his time as Chief of the german fleet to almost scrap ships to get money for the army against Russia.
 
French mobilization was actually faster than the German, and they concentrated along the border with Germany, so "strike the French faster than they can mobilize" doesn't work.

I never said it had to work. I simply asked how things would develop. Plan XVII was so fast it actually shut down some French industry for a while.

This would just become a massive, senseless slaughter with mountains of corpses piling up between these two line.

So...it became World War One?

...I couldn't help it. I'm not sorry. :p

I know Russia was the main enemy to beat. I'm just curious as to what might have happened had Germany chosen not to attack through Belgium.

In truth, Schlieffen's plan was too stiff. Everything had to go just so, or it would not work.
 

Deleted member 94680

In truth, Schlieffen's plan was too stiff. Everything had to go just so, or it would not work.

Well in truth Moltke's plan was too stiff. The Schlieffen Plan (if there was such a thing) called for a counterattack on the French offensive after the Germans had sat waiting for the Elan to bring the French to them.

It's confused, but it seems Schlieffen had discounted the "grand sweep" after wargaming it and finding the logistics didn't add up. Moltke, not being the man his predecessor or Uncle were, was in favour of the Spirit Of The Offensive type nonsense and reworked the deployment plans into the mess that was launched in 1914.

Even if the Germans had won at the Marne, they would have outpaced their supply lines soon after and never reached Paris.
 
2. Defensive in the West and try to get something going in the East (objectives would be limited).

....

Now #2 actually was considered, but you are committing to fighting a long war, which the German leadership didn't think they could fight, due to the problems of importing critical war materials. I've never read that #3 was given much consideration.

Still could have been a better strategy. (Many caveats).

a. With no invasion of Belgium and defensive stance in Alsace... UK might have remained neutral. Then how would a Franco-German Battle for the Atlantic play out? Would French submarines force UK to defend merchant ships headed for Germany? Could France blockade Belgium and Netherlands and Sweden? Maybe Germany could have kept some imports coming?

b. Could the Russian Army have avoided collapse with concentrated German pressure? Seems unlikely. Much more likely Russia would have surrendered by 1916.
ITL The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a major German victory. They should have negotiated a deal with France and UK then

c. Could Germany have drawn Japan in against Russia (promises of the Carolines and a slice of Siberia?)

d. Would Italy have switched sides?

Peace was always the best strategy. Free trade zones, then common currency and then - boom - Germany is foreclosing on half of Europe during a recession.
 
What's the strategic goal ? ... just ... 'capture the flag' aka get Paris ?

Such kind of goals were already (mostly) outdated in 1870/71.
THE startegic goal must/had be to dissable/capture/crush the oponents military forces. That at least had already materialized in most general staffs thinking at this time.

Wasn't the point of the actual Schlieffen Plan to capture Paris in order to break French morale and force them to surrender?
 

Deleted member 94680

Wasn't the point of the actual Schlieffen Plan to capture Paris in order to break French morale and force them to surrender?

Not really.

The point of the Schlieffen Plan was to defeat the French Army in detail and impose a peace on a defenceless France - Vernichtungsstrategie.

Moltke
got it wrong and thought the idea was to capture the flag (Paris) and the rest would fall into place.
 

Deleted member 94680

What changes, major and minor, occur in World War One if Germany does not implement the Schlieffen Plan, but instead attacks only across the Franco-German border, between Switzerland and Luxembourg? This gives them less of a chance (none, really...) to perform a grand outflanking maneuver in the opening stages, but also concentrates their forces more for a drive on Paris.

The POD you need is... Germany following the Schlieffen Plan!

Such as it was, Schlieffen's Plan consisted of waiting on the defensive for the French to leave their fortifications (élan would take care of that) then destroying them in detail in a counterattack. The "sweep" that's associated with Schlieffen was to sweep around the French attacks to take them in the flank and rear, to ensure they couldn't retreat to the fortifications, thus prolonging the war.

The POD you need to achieve this? Someone other than Moltke the Younger as Chief of Staff should do it. Apparently Hans Hartwig von Beseler was close to Schlieffen, so maybe the Kaiser has an unusually good idea and appoints von Beseler to continue the Count's good work?
 
You could have them follow the often recommended strategy of defending in the west and attacking in the east.
 
Tried this on the game board a few times. The only way it works is use a small German tactical edge to create a unfavorable attrition for the French. If the French player does not catch on soon enough he finds his army must retreat into the interior or be destroyed. The heavy artillery of the Germans is enough to obviate the fortress zone. Most French players see what I'm up to and take actions to nuetralize the strategy. But a few times I've been able to methodically dismember the French field army & fortresses.
 

BooNZ

Banned
... The strategic goal of the so-called Schlieffen-plan west was :
by a fast move cature and crush the french army between the fast right wing as a hammer and the inforced fortress line mentioned above as the anvil
and then
move east ASAP to beat - somehow - the main enemy : Russia.

Please don't forget : even for Schlieffen Russia was the main enemy to beat, the enemy of uncounted nighmarish dreams of prussian generals since ... the 1870/71 victory (?), the nigtmare that drove Caprivi in his time as Chief of the german fleet to almost scrap ships to get money for the army against Russia.

My understanding was that for Germany, the main enemy was always considered to be France. The Germans respected the French military tradition and there was comparatively little space to trade in the West. Vast numbers of resiliant Russian peasants, which were previously formidable, were not the material needed for increasingly technical modern warfare. The OTL German assessment of Russian capacities was relatively accurate - i.e. rubbish. The fear of Russia was based on its future potential for vast improvement. That's not to say the picture of Russian hordes was not used to drive German army budgets. IMHO
 
What about still going for the Belgium sweep, but instead of using the right wing as the main striking force, use them to bend the French line, while stacking the heavy artillery in the center wing and attacking the joint between the French left and right wings, possibly at Verdun, then marching south along the Meuse to roll up the French right wing?
 
Top