Von Moltke's successor?

This is for a TL idea I'm working on, but who would succeed von Moltke the Younger if he were to die/retire in late 1912/early 1913? I haven't been able to find much on the internet, so any help is appreciated

EDIT: Crap, wrong section. Could a mod move this please?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Falkenhayn did in OTL in 1914, so he is a candidate. You could just go through the list of Army commanders at the start of WW1. One of them probably is the next head of the Army, just look at their biographies in Wiki, and make sure they got along with the Kaiser.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
BTW, I think you have to petition the moderators to get it moved. They may not see your message otherwise.
 
Falkenhayn is a likely candidate. Colmar von der Goltz was also mooted at one point, but he got himself into hot water with his superiors over political views.
 
When Schlieffen retired, August von Mackensen had been suggested as a successor, so perhaps he would get the job now.
 
Although Mackensen was a spineless monarchist -and thus might have pleased Wilhelm II, who knew him well, as a pliable successor to the courtman Moltke, he was corps commander (XVII. AK) at that time and hardly had the reputation necessary. After all, the land arms race was in its red hot phase and an all out war was perceived to be lurking ahead. In this phase, the military establishment would have pressed for competent replacement.

Therefore, in 1912/13, most probably one of the Chief Quartermasters would have succeeded Moltke - either Konstantin Schmidt von Knobelsdorf, a former military educator of the Crown Prince, or Hermann von Kuhl, or Georg Graf von Waldersee, who had good political connections. Another possible choice might have been the Quartermaster General, Hermann von Stein.

My bet would be Schmidt von Knobelsdorf, who had Wilhelm's trust - and was in a suitable position.
 
Falkenhayn. Though the failure of Germany's war-winning gambit in 1914 is preordained by logistics. The contingent details might be different but the broader pattern will not be. By the converse the Allies don't have what it takes to win in 1914 on the Western Front, either.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
This is for a TL idea I'm working on, but who would succeed von Moltke the Younger if he were to die/retire in late 1912/early 1913? I haven't been able to find much on the internet, so any help is appreciated

EDIT: Crap, wrong section. Could a mod move this please?

On your TL, do you have a different strategy for the Germans in mind? If so, you might want to use the General that has the views closest to what you want the Germans to do. When I went with my TL, I chose Prince Henry because he was a technological innovator and he was also competent. To get him in the write job title with the right assistants, I had to start years before the war. So lets say you like Mackensen as the new leader, you may have to go back to say 1907 and have him do something to standout. Then maybe in 1910 he is promoted to 3rd Army commander. etc.

Although Mackensen was a spineless monarchist -and thus might have pleased Wilhelm II, who knew him well, as a pliable successor to the courtman Moltke, he was corps commander (XVII. AK) at that time and hardly had the reputation necessary. After all, the land arms race was in its red hot phase and an all out war was perceived to be lurking ahead. In this phase, the military establishment would have pressed for competent replacement.
 
Were there any Russia-first advocates in the pre-war top positions? If not, Germany still loses the war.

"You can't get to Paris on a German horse, cause French machine guns will turn it into wurst."
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Were there any Russia-first advocates in the pre-war top positions? If not, Germany still loses the war.

"You can't get to Paris on a German horse, cause French machine guns will turn it into wurst."

WW1 was a very close war, and it was still winnable with various POD's, such as:

1) No unrestricted submarine warfare, and no Zimmerman telegram.

2) Italy stays out of the war.

3) A-H does Plan Russia, not Plan Balkans.

There are several good Germany winning TL. Look of WIKING
 
The original Plan could also have been executed better so that, while it would still fail in its ultimate strategic objectives, it would place Germany in better position than it was IOTL.
 
Sorry, school kept me from replying on this for a while. Anyways, I was looking for a candidate with a Russia-first policy and being on the defensive in Alsace-Lorraine. But thanks for the suggestions so far, I'll have to look through these guys. If anyone knows of some Russia-first types off the top of their heads, I'd appreciate that.
 
Anyways, I was looking for a candidate with a Russia-first policy and being on the defensive in Alsace-Lorraine. But thanks for the suggestions so far, I'll have to look through these guys. If anyone knows of some Russia-first types off the top of their heads, I'd appreciate that.

The main man for a Russia-first strategy was Sigismund von Schlichting, but he was dead in 1909. Though the Germans did have plans drawn up for a Russia-first strategy, the Ostaufmarschplan, this was abandoned in April 1913 with no opposition, and even the two heads of departments relevant to the plan welcomed its being scrapped (according to Waldersee - Georg, not Alfred). No idea who its supporters were within the Generalstab, it seems like there was an almost hive mind of support for France-first strategies, with no one dissenting!
 
The main man for a Russia-first strategy was Sigismund von Schlichting, but he was dead in 1909. Though the Germans did have plans drawn up for a Russia-first strategy, the Ostaufmarschplan, this was abandoned in April 1913 with no opposition, and even the two heads of departments relevant to the plan welcomed its being scrapped (according to Waldersee - Georg, not Alfred). No idea who its supporters were within the Generalstab, it seems like there was an almost hive mind of support for France-first strategies, with no one dissenting!

One wonders how the Germans couldn't have seen the impact that the machine gun would have on horseflesh. The Schlieffen Plan is completely dependent on reaching certain points on time. Most of them would be impossible on foot and even extremely difficult on horseback. Its amazing that virtually everyone in 1914 expected a short war.

How many millions of Reichsmarks were expended on the fortification of Alsace-Lorraine? The French were clearly willing to bleed themselves white in the spirit of elan and revenge. Five or even Four German armies in fortifications and trenches could have kept the French out indefinitely. Force France to march through Belgium to get at the Ruhr and then what does Britain do?
 
Were there any Russia-first advocates in the pre-war top positions? If not, Germany still loses the war.

"You can't get to Paris on a German horse, cause French machine guns will turn it into wurst."

People tend to forget that Russia went through three governments and two wars to surrender only for domestic reasons, not the supposed superiority of the Germans. Russia was not defeated in WWI by Germany, it unraveled from trying to wage a giant modern war with two governments and an army of peasants who were more interested in land reform than the war. The sheer casualties Russia sustained no more ended Russia's war than the Somme did Britain's war or Caporetto did Italy's.

Going for Russia First leaves far more problems than it solves, not least being the sheer mammoth scale of Russia's space and that Germany's successes IOTL against the sheer masses of Russia's armies tended to produce a string of barren victories.

WW1 was a very close war, and it was still winnable with various POD's, such as:

1) No unrestricted submarine warfare, and no Zimmerman telegram.

2) Italy stays out of the war.

3) A-H does Plan Russia, not Plan Balkans.

There are several good Germany winning TL. Look of WIKING

Austria-Hungary throwing everything against Russia isn't enough. They threw the preponderance of their armies into Russia IOTL but the Russians got the jump on them. The Germans weren't necessarily supermen against Russia, either. It's worth remembering that Tannenberg was not the only instance of a Russian invasion of Germany, they invaded a second time by the winter of 1914.

The main man for a Russia-first strategy was Sigismund von Schlichting, but he was dead in 1909. Though the Germans did have plans drawn up for a Russia-first strategy, the Ostaufmarschplan, this was abandoned in April 1913 with no opposition, and even the two heads of departments relevant to the plan welcomed its being scrapped (according to Waldersee - Georg, not Alfred). No idea who its supporters were within the Generalstab, it seems like there was an almost hive mind of support for France-first strategies, with no one dissenting!

That's because to the Germans they expected they could take France out in six weeks and then turn on Russia. Essentially what they wanted was a WWII-type scenario but what they got was something different. A Russia-first strategy will be a very difficult one for Germany, especially with the Western Allies having the chance to start invading Germany proper from the West......

One wonders how the Germans couldn't have seen the impact that the machine gun would have on horseflesh. The Schlieffen Plan is completely dependent on reaching certain points on time. Most of them would be impossible on foot and even extremely difficult on horseback. Its amazing that virtually everyone in 1914 expected a short war.

How many millions of Reichsmarks were expended on the fortification of Alsace-Lorraine? The French were clearly willing to bleed themselves white in the spirit of elan and revenge. Five or even Four German armies in fortifications and trenches could have kept the French out indefinitely. Force France to march through Belgium to get at the Ruhr and then what does Britain do?

That's actually the *least* of the problems with the Western offensive. The biggest single problem was the myopic refusal to admit the impact nine years had on Russia's capacity to mobilize. No changes in the details of the Western offensive fix this particular problem. The second-biggest problem is the attack assumed 1) an invasion of the Netherlands, and 2) armies that didn't exist in 1914, much less when Schlieffen wrote his plan. The third-biggest issue was that the plan denied logistics and was based on the kind of blind optimism one frankly expects of the WWII Imperial Japanese Army.

Moltke's plan was actually more workable and more ambitious than von Schlieffen's plan was. General von Schlieffen wanted a single envelopment, Moltke was trying for a double envelopment.
 
How many millions of Reichsmarks were expended on the fortification of Alsace-Lorraine? The French were clearly willing to bleed themselves white in the spirit of elan and revenge. Five or even Four German armies in fortifications and trenches could have kept the French out indefinitely. Force France to march through Belgium to get at the Ruhr and then what does Britain do?

I don't know if France would attack through Belgium, or at least not in the first couple years of fighting. If Britain is still somehow not in the war at that point, I think they'd stay neutral. Germany was its biggest threat and anything that helped Germany potentially meant a single power controlling the continent, which was the one outcome British foreign policy always tried to stop from happening. But with a neutral Britain and the allies invading small neutral countries, world opinion would probably swing a lot more towards favoring Germany. Plus Germany would not have to deal with the British blockade. All-in-all, a pretty good outcome for Germany.

Militarily, I'd imagine France could take over most of Belgium in about the same time frame the Germans did it. It's basically a reverse Schlieffen plan, and will probably meet about the same level of success: conquest of Belgium, a foothold in the enemy's country, and longer trench lines. The Germans would probably be able to hold onto the big industrial centers. Without British help, German armies would have been more than capable of holding off whatever the French tried to do in Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhur/Belgium while they dealt with Russia in this scenario.
 
I don't know if France would attack through Belgium, or at least not in the first couple years of fighting. If Britain is still somehow not in the war at that point, I think they'd stay neutral. Germany was its biggest threat and anything that helped Germany potentially meant a single power controlling the continent, which was the one outcome British foreign policy always tried to stop from happening. But with a neutral Britain and the allies invading small neutral countries, world opinion would probably swing a lot more towards favoring Germany. Plus Germany would not have to deal with the British blockade. All-in-all, a pretty good outcome for Germany.

Militarily, I'd imagine France could take over most of Belgium in about the same time frame the Germans did it. It's basically a reverse Schlieffen plan, and will probably meet about the same level of success: conquest of Belgium, a foothold in the enemy's country, and longer trench lines. The Germans would probably be able to hold onto the big industrial centers. Without British help, German armies would have been more than capable of holding off whatever the French tried to do in Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhur/Belgium while they dealt with Russia in this scenario.

The degree to which the Allies were willing to blatantly violate Greek neutrality in the Salonika Front torpedoes thoroughly any idea that the objection to Belgium being violated was anything but a British pretext. However the French won't actually be attacking through Belgium, they will as per OTL be attacking into Alsace-Lorraine. The odds of Germany letting France invade its territory indefinitely are slim to negligible.
 
Sorry, school kept me from replying on this for a while. Anyways, I was looking for a candidate with a Russia-first policy and being on the defensive in Alsace-Lorraine. But thanks for the suggestions so far, I'll have to look through these guys. If anyone knows of some Russia-first types off the top of their heads, I'd appreciate that.

There are next to none. One reason for this is that the Germans didn't expect Russia to matter initially in any war, and expected that their attack in the West would be a successful opening campaign, followed by a vaguely-defined strategy in the East. Germany's major problem with such a strategy, well actually several such problems, include 1) the assumption that given sufficient time the Allies won't be able to batter deeply into both Germany and Austria-Hungary, and 2) the understandable reluctance to go traipse off deep into Russia in precisely the kind of idiocy that doomed Germany in WWI.

Russia IOTL collapsed from the domestic political crisis caused by the issue of land reform coupled with the balky and self-warring leadership of the Soviets and provisional government. It did not collapse from Germany simply marching into and attacking it, and from a purely military perspective Russia was the only Ally to capture full armies and make deep advances against enemy lines. Period. The Western Front only saw comparable actions by 1918, and the war in Palestine and Mesopotamia never saw equivalent large-scale surrenders of Ottoman troops until the year of the armistice.
 
Of course, all one has to do is compare the density of forces, and the rail networks, and it becomes obvious why France didn't have encirclement/breakthrough battles.
 
Last edited:
Top