I'm unsure of how best to phrase the title, but what if, instead of invading France before Russia was ready, the German Empire focused on crushing the Russian bear?

Say instead of invading Belgium, Germany, learning from the ACW and Russo-Japanese war, expected a slow and bogged down war and knew risking Britain's involvement would be suicide, and place enough men to hold the French border while the vast majority go into defeating russia.

Would this strategy work? if so, what happens to the french? do they fall to communism and plot their vengeance? Does russia? or is the Tsardom united under threat of invasion?
 
May I suggest you do a search of Russia first or something like that, there are a number of big threads on the topic.

But anyway, it is a shit idea that would cause Germany to lose the war faster.
 
Wouldn’t that be more dangerous than in OTL? Russia’s too big for a strategy predicated on quickly taking out an enemy on one front so that Germany can quickly deploy its troops to the other front.
 
pea sized brain: "we can totes knock out Russia in like a week or two"

walnut sized brain: "we can totes knock out France in like a week or two"

normal brain: "what if we did a balanced deployment?"

big brain: "France inherently requires priority, but as a buffer an additional army should be sent east."

bigger brain: "someone write these two words down, army group."

universe sized brain: "Maybe we should actually tell the Austrians what we intend to do before they start mobilizing under the assumption that we'll cover Russia while they dumpster Serbia..."
 
Wouldn’t that be more dangerous than in OTL? Russia’s too big for a strategy predicated on quickly taking out an enemy on one front so that Germany can quickly deploy its troops to the other front.

Retrospectively Russia was the colossus with clay feet while France proved surprisingly resilient both militarily and economically, was yeah in 1914 you have to be a an esper with fortune-telling skills to predict such an outcome...

pea sized brain: "we can totes knock out Russia in like a week or two"

walnut sized brain: "we can totes knock out France in like a week or two"

normal brain: "what if we did a balanced deployment?"

big brain: "France inherently requires priority, but as a buffer an additional army should be sent east."

bigger brain: "someone write these two words down, army group."

universe sized brain: "Maybe we should actually tell the Austrians what we intend to do before they start mobilizing under the assumption that we'll cover Russia while they dumpster Serbia..."

Austrian pov

Pea size Brain: Given that our military expanse have been significantly lower than the other major in the past few years largely because of political issues with the Hungarians over the budget and that Germany is willing to deal with France first, maybe we should stick to a careful defensive approach until France is dealt with.

Walnut size Brain: Well German's VIIIth army is not taking any offensive operation in East Prussia, so it may be unwise to attack Russia alone, so we should quickly deal with Serbia which is obviously the weakest member of the Entente powers.

Normal size brain: Defend against Serbia and launch a full scale offensive against Russia, we are not strong enough to attack both enemies at the same time after all having 48 divisions against the 50 divisions Russia could commit against us and the 11 from Serbia. But maybe with our quicker mobilization we can get some significant success in the east, maybe...

Universe sized brain: ATTAC BOTH SERBIA AND RUSSIA at the same time YOLO!
 

BooNZ

Banned
But anyway, it is a shit idea that would cause Germany to lose the war faster.
With the benefit of hindsight, even a fool could recognise the German invasion of Belgium was a mistake....

"The larger part of our army ought first to have been sent east to smash the Russian steam roller, limiting operations in the west to beating off the enemy's attack on our frontier" Helmuth von Moltke the Younger - circa early 1915, in discussion with Matthias Erzberger
 
Last edited:
With hindsight it's apparent that the Germans could have held off the French in the west with their border fortifications and a modest deployment of their field army. It's not so apparent that a major deployment to the east could have defeated Russia quickly. However, if the Germans keep the Russians at bay and the Austrians (with some German help) crush the Serbs quickly and England and Italy and probably Turkey stay out of the war, then I could see a possibility that this does NOT become a world war and that by the spring of 1915 everyone comes to their senses and a peace treaty is made.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
At the time it was not readily apparent, just as @Scott Washburn notes, but at the time, Russia was at the greatest relative military disadvantage since 1600 or thereabouts. Russia was still absurdly big, and this was historically its great advantage (strategic depth + vast numbers), but its military wasn't ready for a war against highly modernised Germany. OTL demonstrates very, very clearly how big the discrepancy was: Germany managed to knock Russia out of the war even though it was dedicating its main effort elsewhere, and while also fighting several other great powers.

An "east first" strategy, if handled competently, was a brilliant idea. Von der Goltz knew what was up, and they should've listened to him. (Falkenhayn came around at the last minute, but by then it was too late, and Germany was committed to its idiotic 'France first' plan.) To be fair, Germany didn't know (initially) how great the Russian disadvantage was, and prior experience against Russia had led to sensible caution. The fact is that 1914 provided an almost unique chance to actually beat Russia swiftly and effectively, and Germany predictably squandered said chance. If it had happened otherwise, things could still have gone wrong. Particularly, a very serious attempt would have to be made to spread disinformation, and to make both France and Russia believe -- for as long as possible -- that Germany intended to go "France first". If that can be managed, results in the actual opening stages of the war can be maximised.

What would this have meant? It would have meant a strong defensive position for the Germans in the West, forcing France to either throw itself into the meat-grinder of Elsaß-Lothringen in the (rather uncertain) hope that Britain could be convinced to join on their side, or to attempt to widen the front by marching through Belgium (which would near-certainly make British entry on the French side impossible). In the East, the initial German offensives would be costly for them (they'd be attacking the Russians, instead of the other way around), but would be overwhelming in their strategic success.

Basically: CP victory becomes inevitable by mid- to late 1916. Britain stays out (even if they still want to enter on the French side, the war will be over before a clear majority for this can be constructed). The USA never gets involved. The peace is relatively 'white', because the war is shorter. Lenin is never sent to Russia, but the Tsar is still rather discredited. Constitutional monarchy ensues.
 
May I suggest you do a search of Russia first or something like that, there are a number of big threads on the topic.

But anyway, it is a shit idea that would cause Germany to lose the war faster.
I promise I'm not being accusative, but I think I remember you in a previous thread thinking East First feasible, or at least not dismissing the idea. Have you had a change of mind?
 
Last edited:
I promise I'm not being accusative, but I think I remember you in a previous thread thinking East First feasible, or at least dismissing the idea. Have you had a change of mind?

No, I am still a firm believer in the West is best.

EDIT: To clarify, I have looked at the plans the Germans had for offensives in the East up until 1913 and believe that they would be successful in destroying the 1st and 2nd (or 8 in 1913 and 10 in 191) Russian Armies and capturing the border fortresses in short order. However this would not be sufficient to lead to a decision on the eastern front, as was shown by similar results of OTL.

In contrast the western option of 1913-14 gave the Germans the opportunity to force a decision by engaging all of France's 5 armies long before Russia could bring a 3rd (1913) or 3rd and 4th (1914) rmy to bear against Germany in the east.
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
What would this have meant? It would have meant a strong defensive position for the Germans in the West, forcing France to either throw itself into the meat-grinder of Elsaß-Lothringen in the (rather uncertain) hope that Britain could be convinced to join on their side, or to attempt to widen the front by marching through Belgium (which would near-certainly make British entry on the French side impossible). In the East, the initial German offensives would be costly for them (they'd be attacking the Russians, instead of the other way around), but would be overwhelming in their strategic success.
If we have a late POD regarding a German decision to go east, then there is little scope for the Russians to abandon their OTL offensive into east Prussia. The most likely variation would be the Russians adding additional formations into the offensive mix to 'ensure victory' with predictable and disastrous consequences for Russia.

If we have a earlier premeditated POD (say 1912), then I would envisage a considered German objective would be to envelope the entire Polish salient and destroy the Russian military forces therein. An earlier POD makes exact outcomes less certain, but my money would be on the German horse - if I were a betting man.

EDIT: To clarify, I have looked at the plans the Germans had for offensives in the East up until 1913 and believe that they would be successful in destroying the 1st and 2nd (or 8 in 1913 and 10 in 191) Russian Armies and capturing the border fortresses in short order. However this would not be sufficient to lead to a decision on the eastern front, as was shown by similar results of OTL.
This begs the question, how the Russians would respond to the loss of the Russian 1st, 2nd (and probably 4th) armies and the Polish fortresses (and the vast stores and munitions therein) around the end of September 1914? At this point would the 3-4 unattended German armies merely hibernate for the next six months?

As an aside, Conrad's obsession with the offensive had disastrous consequences OTL, but in a scenario where multiple German armies are threatening the Russian rear, such tactics would greatly complicate the Russian ability to respond to the German threat.

In contrast the western option of 1913-14 gave the Germans the opportunity to force a decision by engaging all of France's 5 armies long before Russia could bring a 3rd (1913) or 3rd and 4th (1914) rmy to bear against Germany in the east.
This might have made some sense if the cowardly French forces were expected to hunker down behind their fortress line. This logic was no longer valid from 1912, when it was clear both the French and the Russians had subscribed to the cult of the offensive. There was no need for an arduous German road (and rail) trip through Belgium for an uncertain away game in northern France, if the Germans could instead be assured of a home game and the associated advantages?

Further to the above, with the CP are ripping the Russians apart, a draw/ stalemate is a perfectly acceptable outcome for the Germans in the west - it is the French who need to push for an implausible series of decisive victories - immediately.
 

trajen777

Banned
Although this has been rehashed forever on this site, I would love to retread it 100 more times.. Ha ha

The russian army was known as a weak steamroller ( after 1904/5 war) that was growing in power. No one realized how weak they were.

I always felt a east first was the right decision, but mainly because unlike some others ( the big debate), I feel without the invasion of Belgium gb is neutral.

1 Russians and french attack ( the plan)
2 germans have 4 armies east and west
3 ah saved from early disasters
4 russian armies destroyed to a greater extent
5 french army hammered like in real time
6 italy neutral, maybe cp
7 cp able to import
8 gb keeps ocean open and does not allow germany to blockade fr
9 japan. ?????

Very bad for fr / Russia
 
Reverse Schilfeen is France own Plan XVII...wonder how the british would have reacted to that
 
pea sized brain: "we can totes knock out Russia in like a week or two"

walnut sized brain: "we can totes knock out France in like a week or two"

normal brain: "what if we did a balanced deployment?"

big brain: "France inherently requires priority, but as a buffer an additional army should be sent east."

bigger brain: "someone write these two words down, army group."

universe sized brain: "Maybe we should actually tell the Austrians what we intend to do before they start mobilizing under the assumption that we'll cover Russia while they dumpster Serbia..."

Multi-verse size brain; "Uh, guys... the Entente is a lot bigger than we are with the whole British Empire, French Empire and Russian Empire controlling 65% of the Earth's surface, all the oceans and most of the money and resources. They have a lot more men, too. Maybe we should rethink this whole war idea?"
 
Top