The Kaiser's revelation.

Lets say Kaiser Wilhelm decides after taking Belgium that an invasion of France is futile so he decides to fight a purely defensive war on the western front. How soon could an armistice be achieved. He never has to order unrestricted submarine warfare. No American intervention. Also would he return the Low Countries to a mirage of independence or annex them into the German Empire.

Edited: Major Brain Fart
 
Last edited:
Netherlands was neutral and Germany didn't invade in WW1. Some versions of the Schlieffen Plan did call for it, is this what you are talking about?

In either event if Germany takes Belgium and stops...

Moltke has a complete and total nervous break down and the rest of the army high command has a fit. I wouldn't claim to say how this plays out but Wilhelm would be in a great deal of trouble. As this would have to rank as the biggest blunder possible. All invading Belgium does is assure that UK enters the war and more than doubles the length of the western front over the common Franco-German border. Bethmann-Hollweg would be fairly stunned by the move and I would expect someone to suggest the idea that Wilhelm is clearly nuts and the Crown Prince needs at least to assume a regency.

Michael
 
All invading Belgium does is assure that UK enters the war and more than doubles the length of the western front over the common Franco-German border. Bethmann-Hollweg would be fairly stunned by the move and I would expect someone to suggest the idea that Wilhelm is clearly nuts and the Crown Prince needs at least to assume a regency.

I completely agree. This leads the whole German grand strategy (beat France decisively within a few weeks bypassing their fortresses at the common border via Belgium in order to be ready for the Russian steamroller once that appears) ad absurdum without reaping any benefits.

The invasion of Belgium was likely to trigger British intervention. Only refraining from that might ensure that the Entente has to fight without Britain, at least for a while.

You have to bear in mind, that the Germans fought against French and British troops on Belgian soil already. If the Germans halted at the French border, the French would only assumed that they have stopped them successfully. Quelle victoire glorieuse!

---

It has often been suggested to cancel the Schlieffenplan altogether and to concentrate on the Russians. Now this is a 20/20 hindsight idea. In 1914, nobody could have guessed that Germany, while fighting the numerically equal French army, would tear the Russian Empire to pieces. Contrary to Hitler, the German General Staff of 1914 had a grasp of the Russian geography and possibilities. They had calculated that in a two front war, they wouldn't stand a chance.
It could have been possible to predict, that against a well-equipped and trained army, the defensive would be the best option, but that would have meant to abandon the general trend of tactical thinking. Besides, the German offensive of 1914 wasn't stopped by trenches, barrages and machine-gun-fire; they simply got confused about their order of battle and decided to walk back a few dozen miles instead of running into trouble.

Now, nevertheless, Wilhelm II demanded for a short while to change the whole mobilization plan (which was about to run at that point of time) as he received a rumor that Britain would definitely stay out of the war if Germany stays out of Belgium. He had to find out that there was no Plan B though, or rather no Plan R. The order was a shock to the military though...it would have been hardly impossible to improvize a turnaround of the carefully elaborated plan which worked like a Swiss clock in order to throw million of men at the Belgian border. (Austria-Hungary did some tinkering with their plans when they couldn't decide whether to put their emphasis on Serbia or Russia - the result was catastrophic).
 
Wilhelm wanted to stand on the defensive in the west and only attack Russia (its right in the guns of august) but Moltke pointed out that would require a new mobilization schedule and plan which might take months to work out and would in turn leave Germany vulnerable... in hindsite... given how adept Germany proved at shutteling around their forces, Willie's idea would have worked out in spades

France still attacks across the frontier (they wouldn't violate Belgium) and gets slaughtered on the frontier fortifications which where just as well built up as the French ones, and the Germans have a bigger maneuver force to mess up the Russians (where the war was still mobile and decisive Germany pressure could achieve victories)
 
Lets say Kaiser Wilhelm decides after taking Belgium that an invasion of France is futile so he decides to fight a purely defensive war on the western front.


In that case, why does he go to war at all?

The whole idea was a quick knock-out of France before her Russian ally could get in on the act. If Wilhelm thinks he can win a purely defensive war, he might as well stand on his own borders and wait for the French and Russians to declare war on him - which they probably won't. So it never spreads beyond the Balkans.
 
... and wait for the French and Russians to declare war on him - which they probably won't. So it never spreads beyond the Balkans.

Au contraire, I am convinced that once Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia (they actually didn't wait for their own DOW on Serbia) the whole machinery of alliances goes to work as it did OTL.

Russia won't let AH punish Serbia and diminuish their main ally on the Balkans (though it is an interesting question how long a pure AH vs Serbia war would have taken!) - maybe if they had attacked mere days after Sarajevo, but not the way they did.

Germany wouldn't let Russia destroy Austria-Hungary. They perceived them as their only reliable ally and feared a conspiracy against Germany.
Now, Eurofed would love them to throw up the cards of alliances that way (becoming Großdeutschland and safe the alliance with Italy), but that would have been seen as completely ruthless. Especially after signalling AH the full weight of German support (one point at which they war could have been avoided).

And with Germany and Austria-Hungary at war with Russia, it would be now or never for France.

@Blairwitch:

You are completely right. They would be seen as geniusses now if they acted that way.

A re-direct of mobilization would have been difficult, but doable. I imagine it the way that most of the trains go on schedule towards the West while those troops which can be easily re-diverted move eastwards.

As many troops as possible march southwards (through difficult terrain in the Eifel and Hunsrück) towards Metz, bolstering the defense against France.

The rest marches northwards into the Rhineland and take up camps in the triangle between Aachen, Cologne and Düsseldorf. Supply gets re-directed there instead into Belgium.

As soon as the initial mobilization is over or cut short, division after division gets picked up on the Rhine and sent to Silesia and East Prussia. We are now probably still in August. Directly after the battle of Tannenberg, we would have a situation where, when compared to OTL, the German commanders in the East would be swamped with disposable troops. Now they did well with what they had OTL, the possibilities are huge if they don't make grave mistakes.

The French plan XVII would have no reason to be any less of a disaster than it was. There might be limited counterattacks to improve the frontlines (especially considering the terrain).

If we assume the best case scenario of British neutrality, then there is no blockade. The CP could decisively improve the management of its economy, avoid most of their hunger-crises if not all of it and keep a higher morale on the home front.

The loss of colonies would be restricted to those in the French vicinity, Togo and Kamerun, maybe the possession in the Pazific.

German counteroffensives in the east could start earlier, thus still in autumn instead of winter. This would at least ease the Austrian desaster in Galicia. In a best case scenario, we would see encirclement battles in Poland and the capture of not only Lodz but maybe also Warsaw - all of that in 1914.

Under such circumstances, Italy and Romania might remain neutral. 1915 might see CP advances into the Balticum and the Ukraine which would make the Tsar sue for peace (unless Britain sooner or later still enters the war).

By autumn 1915, France might be alone... in well-defendable positions, but in no hope of winning.
 
Lets say Kaiser Wilhelm decides after taking Belgium that an invasion of France is futile so he decides to fight a purely defensive war on the western front. How soon could an armistice be achieved. He never has to order unrestricted submarine warfare. No American intervention. Also would he return the Low Countries to a mirage of independence or annex them into the German Empire.

Edited: Major Brain Fart

The invasion of Belgium was a crucial part in the invasion of France and makes relatively little sense if you decide not to bother with France after all.

Also, there won't be an Armistice without a German evacuation of Belgium, and if Germany agrees to that then the Franco-British who have not lost anything in this war are going to be able to claim a victory in the war

Thus the Germans won't be agreeing to it...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

MrP

Banned
Obligatory mention of the Briey Basin, where much of France's pre-war industrial resources were located. Germany seized this, forcing France to turn to other sources. With it still in French hands, Germany is in a weaker position.
 
Obligatory mention of the Briey Basin, where much of France's pre-war industrial resources were located. Germany seized this, forcing France to turn to other sources. With it still in French hands, Germany is in a weaker position.

You can easily extend that to virtually the whole area Germany occupied after 1914. These were the most industrialized regions of France and meant a heavy blow to its war effort.

There has been arguments recently that the German general staff directly prior to 1914 understood the Schlieffen plan less as a mean to actually reach Paris or to encircle the French army, but to seize as much of the industrialized North as possible.
 
Au contraire, I am convinced that once Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia (they actually didn't wait for their own DOW on Serbia) the whole machinery of alliances goes to work as it did OTL.

Russia won't let AH punish Serbia and diminuish their main ally on the Balkans (though it is an interesting question how long a pure AH vs Serbia war would have taken!) - maybe if they had attacked mere days after Sarajevo, but not the way they did.


Depends how quickly the Tsar acts. Nicholas II doesn't strike me as one to do today what he could put off till tomorrow.

If he dithers, A/H occupies Belgrade, but probably, as OTL, doesn't get much further. In theory she has more troops available, as she isn't fighting Russia, but she can't leave her Russian border unguarded, and anyway how many more could her railways carry to the Serbian front?

I could see it all ending in a "Halt in Belgrade" as iirc some people proposed OTL.
 
Obligatory mention of the Briey Basin, where much of France's pre-war industrial resources were located. Germany seized this, forcing France to turn to other sources. With it still in French hands, Germany is in a weaker position.

That is true but think of the advantages; to not attacking at all in the west not invading Belgium and then stopping IE the worst of all worlds. The front is way smaller in length and it would be a near pure defensive stance. How much less resources will it take the Germans to hold the Franco-German frontier and just punch out French advances. Plus half the front out right sucks for offensive action.

I would say that Germany comes out a head on this in the end. If nothing else it would be a few weeks for the UK to make a clear choice and go to war. That would allow more of the German Merchant Marine to get home.

Michael
 
Lets say Kaiser Wilhelm decides after taking Belgium that an invasion of France is futile so he decides to fight a purely defensive war on the western front. How soon could an armistice be achieved. He never has to order unrestricted submarine warfare. No American intervention. Also would he return the Low Countries to a mirage of independence or annex them into the German Empire.

Edited: Major Brain Fart

This scenario would require the entire German officer corps to commit suicide in order for it to be accepted. It's just not in the mentality of any military of the time. Even the Belgians were devoted to the idea of the offensive. With their six divisions. Three of which were on the French border.
 
Depends how quickly the Tsar acts. Nicholas II doesn't strike me as one to do today what he could put off till tomorrow.

If he dithers, A/H occupies Belgrade, but probably, as OTL, doesn't get much further. In theory she has more troops available, as she isn't fighting Russia, but she can't leave her Russian border unguarded, and anyway how many more could her railways carry to the Serbian front?

I could see it all ending in a "Halt in Belgrade" as iirc some people proposed OTL.

I'd say that this is even more the Austrian problem. A "Halt in Belgrad", directly at the beginning of July, that might have been doable.
 
That is true but think of the advantages; to not attacking at all in the west not invading Belgium and then stopping IE the worst of all worlds. The front is way smaller in length and it would be a near pure defensive stance. How much less resources will it take the Germans to hold the Franco-German frontier and just punch out French advances. Plus half the front out right sucks for offensive action.

I would say that Germany comes out a head on this in the end. If nothing else it would be a few weeks for the UK to make a clear choice and go to war. That would allow more of the German Merchant Marine to get home.

Michael



And Briey is right on the border. If A French assault in Lorraine is beaten off, the Germans might still be able to capture it.
 
Top