What if Germany invaded France in 1905

[Tibi088]

The war would initially be justified to the German public in terms of Weltpolitik. The Germans want their place in the sun and the French and British are monopolizing the colonial market, obstructing the German place in the Sun. Colonies were a hot topic at the turn of the century and colonial disputes almost led to war between the Brits and French over the Fashoda incident. This justification would be just as good, if not better than, telling the German public Germany needed to invade France to protect their Austrian brothers from Russian aggression.

You might be able to sell a war like that to middle class or simply nationalistic germans but not to socialistic workers. And they were already winning elections for the SPD to tell something of their numbers. "The russians are coming" was basically the only reason that could produce OTL level of unity.

 

[Tibi088]

Just, no. It was literally every power (colonial, wannabe colonial, non-colonial, colonial in all but name) against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Spain, USA, Japan, Sweden, etc all were against the German position. Even that well-known established colonial power Switzerland spoke against Germany.

The problem was that in 1904, Britain and France had agreed on a British sphere of influence/control in Egypt, and French in Morocco. Germany rightfully assumed that this meant that Britain and France were resolving their colonial rivalries and establishing a tri-partite agreement.

The German position, which essentially came down to local powers being independent of colonial powers (which would have come as some surprise to the Herero people to learn of the German concern for local rule), was purely and simply designed to stir up mischief. Whether serious or a bluff, that's less clear. What is clear is the universality of the opposition to the German position.

Yeah because voting against someone on a conference on a matter where most present are not interested at all is the same as going in to war ower this same matter with the supposedly strongest military power of the world. In an actual war the french could mostly count on London and even that wasnt sure without a german invasion of Belgium.

The germans completly miscalculated in Algeciras but "stirring up mischief" would not be the word I would use. Their plan was to divide the british and the french and to destroy the newly made entente (they only pursued this after the failure of bjorko). The idea was that they hastily acknowledged any british gains from the entente treaty in regards of Egypt and than stepped up to support the open door policy in Morocco (and they have been basing their position on an earlier agreement about Morocco so legally they were in the right). So if the british simply stepped aside (and let the entente drop) than they got to retain what they got in Egypt and the germans would give them back what they sacrificed in Morocco. The germans hoped London will do this - as it turned out the british were more belligerent than the french (the german ambassador was told in no uncertain terms that London would support France militarily in Morocco if need be - though this might have been a bluff). They also didnt know of the agreements the french reached with Italy previously concerning Morocco (if France gets it Italy can have Lybia) so they counted on their allies support - wrongly. They also hoped that pushing for the Open Door would get them american support - in China they did work together in support of that just recently. The USA was however woefully uninterested in Morocco and as it became evident that the german side is outnumbered supported the majority.

 

[Aphrodite]

Yeah because voting against someone on a conference on a matter where most present are not interested at all is the same as going in to war ower this same matter with the supposedly strongest military power of the world. In an actual war the french could mostly count on London and even that wasnt sure without a german invasion of Belgium

"Supposedly strongest military power".

Both Germany and France were highly regarded military powers. No one in 1905 would assume a German victory. Italy is the only power that matters - only she can intervene

British support isn't dependent on Belgium. The British we're sdament throughout the crises that if the French faced war as a result of an agreement with Britain, France was entitled to support

This brings up another problem for a German victory- the British have adopted khaki and will slaughter the Germans in their Prussian blue

The Russians are by no means out. Schlieffen assumed the Austrians would meet them busy. They won't. Russia never committed her front line troops to Manchuria and would have cut the Austrians to pieces. They have an even greater artillery dvantage in1905 than they would in 1914

Really a war over Morocco would have been a quick and decisive victory

The Kaiser knew this as well- he even cited the French 75 as a reason to avoid war

 

[Aphrodite]

While your views on the artillery are obviously valid, I wonder how influential they'd be in this scenario?
Would the Germans even have known about the French 75mm gun and how effective it would be? If so, why didn't they immediately modernise their artillery?
Would the lack of suitable artillery really have that much impact on German political and military strategy? (I can't really remember any country/army waiting until they had properly rearmed, war usually overcomes armies).

Let's not forget that artillery was still considered a supporting weapon at the time. The main emphasis was on infantry and their ability to advance using terrain to their advantage or not (according to The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War). Nobody realised artillery would be a battle winner. In the last major war (Franco-Prussian), artillery was important but infantry made the difference.

The same applies to the Belgian forts and the Dutch water defences. Germany believed (or more accurately hoped) that both countries would allow the Germans through because Germany wasn't picking a fight with them. They had little to win and much to lose in a war against Germany. So the Germans largely ignored Belgium and the Netherlands in their calculations and probably expected to bypass or neutralise them, thereby rendering them useless without unduly hindering the German armies as had happened with the French fortresses during the Franco-Prussian War.

The Germans found out about the French 75s during the boxer Rebellion. It takes time to develop and deploy replacements

The Kaiser cited the French 75 as a reason not to go to war

France is also using the old three year law. They have better trained men and can use their reserves

Even Zuber admits a German attack would have been suicide

 

[SenatorChickpea]

I should say that as someone who's obviously pushed back very hard in this thread, I don't actually think a German victory is by any means impossible.

I just think that firstly it is less likely than 1914. The balance of power was not a static thing; Germany was arguably stronger than France in 1905 as it was in 1914, but the relative disparity was much closer. A war in 1910 would be a different proposition again. So would a delayed war until 1920, for that matter. The Belgians had a different government, and though I think they would have fought, perhaps they don't. Perhaps the Netherlands, for some reason, doesn't fight either. That lets the Germans sweep unopposed into France as per the famous plan. I don't think France would proceed to fold in ten weeks, but the fall of Paris and peace a few months later isn't completely implausible. The Germans might have won. But the starting point for that discussion has to be an analysis of those odds, not a simple declaration that the Germans just roll sixes again and again while most of their opponents don't even bother to play.

The second, more important point though, is that if this is a 'what if' discussion, not the jumping off point to a timeline- which again, would be perfectly valid for the OP as many brilliant timelines have begun with an implausible backstory- then we need to consider what a German victory in 1905 would look like, not in 1914, and definitely not in 1940.

Even in the event of a quick humiliation for France, Germany can't destroy the country as a Great Power. Even if they physically could- and I think that such a settlement would provoke serious resistance, to do so would be risk a backlash unseen since the Coalitions. It's not just Britain and Russia who want a strong France to balance Germany. So do the Austro-Hungarians- their alliance with Germany was a precarious thing where they wanted a strong backer, but they never wanted that backer so strong that it could tear out the German speaking parts of their empire. The smaller countries will have just seen two of their number subjected to an unprovoked invasion. America will not smile upon a power they've clashed with suddenly becoming a continental hegemon. Germany would be terribly exposed.

This scenario is about 1905: using the tropes of 1940 does nothing to aid in the understanding of history, or the understanding of plausible counterfactuals.

 

[Tibi088]

"Supposedly strongest military power".

Both Germany and France were highly regarded military powers. No one in 1905 would assume a German victory. Italy is the only power that matters - only she can intervene

British support isn't dependent on Belgium. The British we're sdament throughout the crises that if the French faced war as a result of an agreement with Britain, France was entitled to support

This brings up another problem for a German victory- the British have adopted khaki and will slaughter the Germans in their Prussian blue

The Russians are by no means out. Schlieffen assumed the Austrians would meet them busy. They won't. Russia never committed her front line troops to Manchuria and would have cut the Austrians to pieces. They have an even greater artillery dvantage in1905 than they would in 1914

Really a war over Morocco would have been a quick and decisive victory

The Kaiser knew this as well- he even cited the French 75 as a reason to avoid war

I used "supposed" as I have a very strong belief that at the time there wasn't that many people who were aware of the disparity in artillery. The germans knew and were working on correcting it. Im less sure about the french: if they had that much of an adventage as you give them they should have been much more belligerent - at least their military. But instead going in to a conflict with Germany at time when their ally (Russia) was preoccupied and loosing elsewhere resulted in the fall of Delcassé. The french either did not believe that they can win a 1 vs 1 fight against Germany with good reason or were not aware of their military superiority. You are also forgetting which others have already pointed out i this very thread: Germany had a much larger population than France and a stronger industry - much mor common knowledge at the time than disparity in artillery I think. Germany also had the reputation of having the strongest military - and besides the artillery there was very good reason fo that. So if you ask an average british, danish etc individual who would win in a 1 on 1 fight between the french and the germans they would likely bet on the germans.

They might be surprised big time by the results but before the war most countries will conduct their diplomacy with the assumption that a 1 vs 1 fight will see the germans parading in Paris sooner or later.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Yes, but in the proposed scenario it's not a one on one fight. Belgium and the Netherlands are allied to France. Belgium's likely ability to hold the Germans at bay for weeks or even months longer than in 1914 is crucial to the outcome of the scenario, and even if we grant that the Netherlands sees little fighting in the first year of the war- and I'm sceptical that any strengthening of the flank by marching through the Netherlands will counterbalance the need for a large holding force along the Water Line- the Dutch being allied to France is a massive advantage to Paris in the event of a long war.

If the war goes longer than it did historically, than with no Haber Process and no ability to route supplies through Dutch ports, the German supply situation is going to be much worse much faster.

 

[David Flin]

If the war goes longer than it did historically, than with no Haber Process and no ability to route supplies through Dutch ports, the German supply situation is going to be much worse much faster.

On the other hand, 1905 predates both the Dreadnought (just) and the start of the Naval Race between Germany and Britain.

If Germany avoids attacking Belgium, and respects Belgian neutrality (which, OK, rather throws the Schlieffen Plan into the waste bin, but never mind), then with some neat diplomatic moves (David, we're talking about Germany in the early 1900s here. Let's keep ASBs down to a minimum, shall we?) British neutrality might be managed. Germany attacking Belgium is a red line for Britain; it's that pesky insistence that British interests relies on Antwerp not being in the hands of a major continental power.

OK, you'll need to pretty much kill of the Kaiser and the German diplomatic corps, who seemed at every crisis point to be itching for a fight and not afraid to turn potential allies into enemies. But if, in 1905, before the Britain/France entente gets too strong, Germany focused on not pissing off Britain at every single turn, then maybe Britain can be persuaded to stay out, in which case, Germany's hopeless supply situation with regard to imports becomes much less serious.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

On the other hand, 1905 predates both the Dreadnought (just) and the start of the Naval Race between Germany and Britain.

If Germany avoids attacking Belgium, and respects Belgian neutrality (which, OK, rather throws the Schlieffen Plan into the waste bin, but never mind), then with some neat diplomatic moves (David, we're talking about Germany in the early 1900s here. Let's keep ASBs down to a minimum, shall we?) British neutrality might be managed. Germany attacking Belgium is a red line for Britain; it's that pesky insistence that British interests relies on Antwerp not being in the hands of a major continental power.

OK, you'll need to pretty much kill of the Kaiser and the German diplomatic corps, who seemed at every crisis point to be itching for a fight and not afraid to turn potential allies into enemies. But if, in 1905, before the Britain/France entente gets too strong, Germany focused on not pissing off Britain at every single turn, then maybe Britain can be persuaded to stay out, in which case, Germany's hopeless supply situation with regard to imports becomes much less serious.

I'm not sure but i believe the british PM gave the french their backing during the morroco crisis

 

[Aphrodite]

I used "supposed" as I have a very strong belief that at the time there wasn't that many people who were aware of the disparity in artillery. The germans knew and were working on correcting it. Im less sure about the french: if they had that much of an adventage as you give them they should have been much more belligerent - at least their military. But instead going in to a conflict with Germany at time when their ally (Russia) was preoccupied and loosing elsewhere resulted in the fall of Delcassé. The french either did not believe that they can win a 1 vs 1 fight against Germany with good reason or were not aware of their military superiority. You are also forgetting which others have already pointed out i this very thread: Germany had a much larger population than France and a stronger industry - much mor common knowledge at the time than disparity in artillery I think. Germany also had the reputation of having the strongest military - and besides the artillery there was very good reason fo that. So if you ask an average british, danish etc individual who would win in a 1 on 1 fight between the french and the germans they would likely bet on the germans.

They might be surprised big time by the results but before the war most countries will conduct their diplomacy with the assumption that a 1 vs 1 fight will see the germans parading in Paris sooner or later.

You used supposedly to argue that there was a consensus among the powers that Germany was the stronger

There just wasn't such a consensus. If there had been, the powers would have rallied to Germany. They didn't

France also never doubted that Britain would stand with them. If anything, Britain was even more belligerent. Belgium doesn't matter to the British.

Germany's population and industrial advantage over France isn't anywhere like it was in 1914. From 1900, Germany's population rose from 56 to 66 million while France's population stagnated

Since British intervention is a given, any power trying to pick the winner would not be inclined to pick Germany without some battlefield success

France didn't seek war but she doesn't cave out of fear of one. Since Russian recovery is almost a given, France had no need to fear the future

The Germans do fear war. Schlieffen's memo basically argues that Germany needed 24 more divisions for a one front war

 

[Aphrodite]

I'm not sure but i believe the british PM gave the french their backing during the morroco crisis

The British we're even more belligerent than the French. They considered the German challenge as a challenge to Britain as much as France

The entire crises grew out of an Anglo-french accord. If Britain doesn't stand by France, she would be viewed as unfaithful and no one would deal with her again

 

[David Flin]

I'm not sure but i believe the british PM gave the french their backing during the morroco crisis

Yes. Basically, France and Britain had come to an agreement over colonial issues. The Anglo-French entente had been signed in 1904, and relations improved quickly.

Belgium doesn't matter to the British.

Well, to clarify, Belgium neutrality is a red line for Britain. It is unthinkable for Britain to allow a major power to control Antwerp. If Germany violates Belgium neutrality, Britain is at war within about 6 seconds. If Germany goes to war with France, without violating Belgium neutrality (ie, discards the Schlieffen Plan entirely), then Britain takes a bit longer, maybe a day or so, to go to war alongside France and against Germany.

Of course, Germany going to war against Britain and France puts Germany in an unenviable position with regard to the naval balance. That blockade that hurt so much in 1914-1918 is going to look like a porous sieve compared to the balance in 1905.

 

[Aphrodite]

Yes. Basically, France and Britain had come to an agreement over colonial issues. The Anglo-French entente had been signed in 1904, and relations improved quickly.



Well, to clarify, Belgium neutrality is a red line for Britain. It is unthinkable for Britain to allow a major power to control Antwerp. If Germany violates Belgium neutrality, Britain is at war within about 6 seconds. If Germany goes to war with France, without violating Belgium neutrality (ie, discards the Schlieffen Plan entirely), then Britain takes a bit longer, maybe a day or so, to go to war alongside France and against Germany.

Of course, Germany going to war against Britain and France puts Germany in an unenviable position with regard to the naval balance. That blockade that hurt so much in 1914-1918 is going to look like a porous sieve compared to the balance in 1905.

In 1905, Britain will go to war whether or not Germany invades Belgium. They'll do it in 1914 as well but that's for a different thread

 

[Tibi088]

You used supposedly to argue that there was a consensus among the powers that Germany was the stronger

There just wasn't such a consensus. If there had been, the powers would have rallied to Germany. They didn't

France also never doubted that Britain would stand with them. If anything, Britain was even more belligerent. Belgium doesn't matter to the British.

Germany's population and industrial advantage over France isn't anywhere like it was in 1914. From 1900, Germany's population rose from 56 to 66 million while France's population stagnated

Since British intervention is a given, any power trying to pick the winner would not be inclined to pick Germany without some battlefield success

France didn't seek war but she doesn't cave out of fear of one. Since Russian recovery is almost a given, France had no need to fear the future

The Germans do fear war. Schlieffen's memo basically argues that Germany needed 24 more divisions for a one front war

I did and I still think so. Germany being thought of as the stronger side in a 1 on 1 conflict doesnt mean that the others will rally to Germany - why would they? They are just as likely to rally to France to stop or preclude German agression. They dont want Germany to beat France and become the hegemon of the continent so they will support France.

You seem to be absolutly sure and convinced about things that are at best assumptions. I find that really disturbing as I dont see it substantiated in anything more than your belief that people long dead would and could act only in the single way you describe.

Germany had a population near 60 million. France had a population near (and a bit below) 40 million. Thats a huge disparity.

France did not seek war but neither did Germany - I think it near ASB that Germany would start a war at this time for more than one reason.

For Russia after the disturbances and the defeat against Japan (ITTL war actually starts before thats even finished) Russia was in no condition to wage a large european war. Reading up on Russia even years later in 1908 Russia had to cave in during the Bosnian crisis because the state of their military was still not what they wanted it to be as a minimum. Do you think that a Russia that is already in a loosing war and faces just about the POD disturbances at home will jump in a war against Germany who was a very friendly neutral during the russo-japanese war to try to help France who just allied their traditional enemy who is the ally of Japan who they are fighting right now? Not to mention France was not very fortcoming with loans either during this period for Russia as well to pressure them to end the war.

As for the british: reading the documents the french did not at all felt sure prior to the crsis and very staunch british support materializing that they can count on the british. It turned out they could count on them but this was after it was put to the test by Germany.