What if the french adopted Victor Michel's plan in 1914

Archibald

Banned
Well, considering the battle of frontiers cost France 22 000 lives in a single day. of August 1914.. that Michel plan can't be worse than OTL (bar ASB tactical nuclear weapons on the German side...)
 
If the french are able to hold along the Meuse in Belgium, they deny Germany the exacts regions and ressources they used to continue the war from 1915 onward (coal, iron and Anwerpt).

But their is a prerequite, you need to deploy 1 million troops and materials in this region BEFORE the germans. For this, I think you need to have Belgium on your side and not just (friendly) neutral before the campain.
 

Insider

Banned
On the bright side the war would be over before Christmas 1914. On the dark France would probably lost it. It has most of flaws of Schlieffen Plan with few of its virtues. It is that both were excelent plans, but arguably they didn't taken enemy action into equation.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But the early period of ww1 normally favoured those who took strong defense positions rather than the attackers. Yeah, the only problem was that the French must reach the Meuse before the German.
 
I could also call this one 'Plan Eric', after my brother. Back in high school we had a copy of Dunnigans old game '1914' . It modeled the opening months on the western front. We must have played the game through over twenty times in 2-3 years. Perhaps more. My brothers stock setup for the French was a strong left that screened Belgium & opened with a powerful force moving north along the Verdun-Namur line to counter any German move into Belgium. I used this several times myself and found it the best option for any German effort through Belgium. While a strong German right could still scoop up most of Belgium the final 'line of exhaustion' was usually much further north than OTL. Thus keeping more of the northern French industrial cities in the French hand. If the German player kept his left as strong as OTL then the French player lost more in the east, but nothing fatal.

Worst case for the French player was if the German choose to take on the Russians first and left a strong garrison in the Metz and Strausberg fortified zones. In that case this plan put the French facing a nuetral Belgium. It took a week or more to reposition the offensive forces and start a offensive into Alsace-Lorraine. This wrong footed the French player for the critical first quarter of the game, to mid September.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I could also call this one 'Plan Eric', after my brother. Back in high school we had a copy of Dunnigans old game '1914' . It modeled the opening months on the western front. We must have played the game through over twenty times in 2-3 years. Perhaps more. My brothers stock setup for the French was a strong left that screened Belgium & opened with a powerful force moving north along the Verdun-Namur line to counter any German move into Belgium. I used this several times myself and found it the best option for any German effort through Belgium. While a strong German right could still scoop up most of Belgium the final 'line of exhaustion' was usually much further north than OTL. Thus keeping more of the northern French industrial cities in the French hand. If the German player kept his left as strong as OTL then the French player lost more in the east, but nothing fatal.

Worst case for the French player was if the German choose to take on the Russians first and left a strong garrison in the Metz and Strausberg fortified zones. In that case this plan put the French facing a nuetral Belgium. It took a week or more to reposition the offensive forces and start a offensive into Alsace-Lorraine. This wrong footed the French player for the critical first quarter of the game, to mid September.
If the French industrial heartland was protected, then the economic condition of Entente countries would be much better after the war if they win.
 
Thing is the French did not have a industrial 'heartland' It lay in a arc across the northern & northeastern periphrial regions. The eastern region sits right up to the German border. On the game board the problem for the French player was that he could protect adaquately one part of this, or another part, but not all of it. That is if you prevent the German player from occupying victory point hexes on one part of the map you are invariably giving up points for industrial cities in another. There are other critical reasons for keeping the Germans off the French northern frontier & I favored that strategy, but it was painful seeing coal mines and steel foundries in the east overrun.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, this scenario could produce a reverse version of Riain's German victory. It would be a nightmare for German thrusts if they face a strong defensive line along the Meuse.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Thing is the French did not have a industrial 'heartland' It lay in a arc across the northern & northeastern periphrial regions. The eastern region sits right up to the German border. On the game board the problem for the French player was that he could protect adaquately one part of this, or another part, but not all of it. That is if you prevent the German player from occupying victory point hexes on one part of the map you are invariably giving up points for industrial cities in another. There are other critical reasons for keeping the Germans off the French northern frontier & I favored that strategy, but it was painful seeing coal mines and steel foundries in the east overrun.
I dont know but the cities in the Northeastern France were defended by heavy fortifications. Thats why the German had to attack through Belgium
 
The German heavy artillery & assault tactics were adaquate for defeating the French fortrresses. Without a substantial field army in support the fortresses fail fairly quickly
 
Victor Michel's plan was a good plan made by a lucid commander but it completely ignored the realities of French politics in the 1910's. It was way too much defensive. If Victor Michel had sold the plan as a "defensive first, epic counter-offensive second" instead of a "slowing then stopping the wave", it could have worked. Sometimes simple choice of words are enough. If he had presented a limited offensive on Metz, the only area that mattered on a strategic POV for a long war (tons of iron of good quality), with his generally defensive plan, it could have been accepted. Victor Michel probably had guessed that the war would be a long one. 1914 was not going to be the decisive year, 1915 was not going to be a decisive year etc. OTL, the Entente uderstood and accepted this in 1918. If Michel can convinced the government that the war will be one war of attrition, the plan XVI would been less of an outrage for the politicians.
Let's assume that Michel is "politically" smart enough to slighly modify his plan:
Step one: we let the germans come like waves against the rocks. That would need more MG or LMGs (the chauchat has already a prototype in 1911!) and a longer range field artillery (like the 105 mm also ready for production in 1911). We inflict them tremendous casualties on a rougly Anvers-Namur-Verdun line then slowly retreat in good order. Repeat that two to three times. At the french border, full stop. Counter offensive (like the Marne), force them to retreat to square one. That need two things: first, no three-years law but instead use that money to train the reservists with extra weeks. With this, you implement reservists regiments within the active divisions. Basically, the number of combat ready -relatively well trained units- divisions in Agust will increase of 25 percents. Second: Break you five big armies into 7 smaller more mobile one (basically 8 divisions with two in reserve with tree corps of one). Also trust someone like Blaise Diagne and Mangin to recruit volunteers in the Colonial Empire (by using the 1916 recruiting policy, very efficient to convince the locals to go fight for france). If you begin this in 1912, you will have another field army of reduced size ready (the only thing to do now is the ship it in time to france, easy to do if it's considered as all-active army).
With that extra number of field armies (plus the BEF), you have the tool to properly outflank the german First army, possibly the Secondwhen you decide the "full stop" and Marne counter-offensive. Encirclement, partially close pocket, one army destroyed, another at least gutted if lucky. Then the Germans are down from 7 to 5 armies when you 7 armies (let's say you have lost rougly the equivalent of a small army too) plus the growing BEF. The Germans are forced to shorten their lines: so retreat back to a Antwerp-Namur-Verdun line.
If you show to the russians that you're holding the line for a sufficient amount of time, they won't rush their offensive in Easter Prussia: More time to mobilize, more divisions (roughly 60 at DAY+30). With this, if not a victory, this will be a bloody stalemate for the Germans down to 1 army in the east. Again: Germans forced to retreat along the Vistule.
In that moment, when the Germans are forced to pick up corps in the West to throw them in the East, you turn this into an impossible mathematical equation: offensive against Metz and the 5th army in a classical pincer movement. Even if you don't take Metz, it forces the Germans to be everywhere with a limited amount of men.
RESULTS: Northern France preserved with its ressources and industry, a Belgium at least half-Entente on a territorial point of view (coal around Namur) and a Coast secured for the British. Germans forced to adopt a defensive strategy with limited ressources (if Metz is taken or even in range for the french artillery, its mines are useless). Their losses: around 500 000 men. Yours: 200 000 (if you don't act stupid like Joffre OTL) plus the British and Belgian ones. In the East, Russia keeps two fields army and a Poland which is not encircled by Silesia and East Prussia: less troubles in the future. Against A-H, same as OTL.
The Ottoman Empire remains a wild card with the 3 august agreement and the Breslau going as OTL and still can declare war but in the same time, if Germany is clearly in the defensive and in difficulty, they might hesitate. Italy will be even more convinced to switch sides. Bulgaria, well between spetember 1914 and 1915, a lot can happen so I don't know.
As for Germany, either she sues for peace: lose A-L, Easter prussia, probably not Poznan, A-H lost Galicia/bukovina and perhaps Bosnia and Northern Serbia to Serbia. No heavy reparations, no limitations on German armies: that means a plausible round two not so long after. Or Germany gets stubborn. If Victor Michel is still in place, knowing the man, he will prefer limited and well planned offensives instead of the disastrous 1915 ones. Germany feels the first effects of a blockade, try Jutland, fail to kill the RN as OTL and go back home. War could end for fall 1916: Germany will probalby lose Posen and upper silesia this time. Belgium as OTL, Romania perhaps as OTL if she joins the feast, Italy as OTL, France will perhaps get sourthern Sarre according the 1814 borders.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Victor Michel's plan was a good plan made by a lucid commander but it completely ignored the realities of French politics in the 1910's. It was way too much defensive. If Victor Michel had sold the plan as a "defensive first, epic counter-offensive second" instead of a "slowing then stopping the wave", it could have worked. Sometimes simple choice of words are enough. If he had presented a limited offensive on Metz, the only area that mattered on a strategic POV for a long war (tons of iron of good quality), with his generally defensive plan, it could have been accepted. Victor Michel probably had guessed that the war would be a long one. 1914 was not going to be the decisive year, 1915 was not going to be a decisive year etc. OTL, the Entente uderstood and accepted this in 1918. If Michel can convinced the government that the war will be one war of attrition, the plan XVI would been less of an outrage for the politicians.
Let's assume that Michel is "politically" smart enough to slighly modify his plan:
Step one: we let the germans come like waves against the rocks. That would need more MG or LMGs (the chauchat has already a prototype in 1911!) and a longer range field artillery (like the 105 mm also ready for production in 1911). We inflict them tremendous casualties on a rougly Anvers-Namur-Verdun line then slowly retreat in good order. Repeat that two to three times. At the french border, full stop. Counter offensive (like the Marne), force them to retreat to square one. That need two things: first, no three-years law but instead use that money to train the reservists with extra weeks. With this, you implement reservists regiments within the active divisions. Basically, the number of combat ready -relatively well trained units- divisions in Agust will increase of 25 percents. Second: Break you five big armies into 7 smaller more mobile one (basically 8 divisions with two in reserve with tree corps of one). Also trust someone like Blaise Diagne and Mangin to recruit volunteers in the Colonial Empire (by using the 1916 recruiting policy, very efficient to convince the locals to go fight for france). If you begin this in 1912, you will have another field army of reduced size ready (the only thing to do now is the ship it in time to france, easy to do if it's considered as all-active army).
With that extra number of field armies (plus the BEF), you have the tool to properly outflank the german First army, possibly the Secondwhen you decide the "full stop" and Marne counter-offensive. Encirclement, partially close pocket, one army destroyed, another at least gutted if lucky. Then the Germans are down from 7 to 5 armies when you 7 armies (let's say you have lost rougly the equivalent of a small army too) plus the growing BEF. The Germans are forced to shorten their lines: so retreat back to a Antwerp-Namur-Verdun line.
If you show to the russians that you're holding the line for a sufficient amount of time, they won't rush their offensive in Easter Prussia: More time to mobilize, more divisions (roughly 60 at DAY+30). With this, if not a victory, this will be a bloody stalemate for the Germans down to 1 army in the east. Again: Germans forced to retreat along the Vistule.
In that moment, when the Germans are forced to pick up corps in the West to throw them in the East, you turn this into an impossible mathematical equation: offensive against Metz and the 5th army in a classical pincer movement. Even if you don't take Metz, it forces the Germans to be everywhere with a limited amount of men.
RESULTS: Northern France preserved with its ressources and industry, a Belgium at least half-Entente on a territorial point of view (coal around Namur) and a Coast secured for the British. Germans forced to adopt a defensive strategy with limited ressources (if Metz is taken or even in range for the french artillery, its mines are useless). Their losses: around 500 000 men. Yours: 200 000 (if you don't act stupid like Joffre OTL) plus the British and Belgian ones. In the East, Russia keeps two fields army and a Poland which is not encircled by Silesia and East Prussia: less troubles in the future. Against A-H, same as OTL.
The Ottoman Empire remains a wild card with the 3 august agreement and the Breslau going as OTL and still can declare war but in the same time, if Germany is clearly in the defensive and in difficulty, they might hesitate. Italy will be even more convinced to switch sides. Bulgaria, well between spetember 1914 and 1915, a lot can happen so I don't know.
As for Germany, either she sues for peace: lose A-L, Easter prussia, probably not Poznan, A-H lost Galicia/bukovina and perhaps Bosnia and Northern Serbia to Serbia. No heavy reparations, no limitations on German armies: that means a plausible round two not so long after. Or Germany gets stubborn. If Victor Michel is still in place, knowing the man, he will prefer limited and well planned offensives instead of the disastrous 1915 ones. Germany feels the first effects of a blockade, try Jutland, fail to kill the RN as OTL and go back home. War could end for fall 1916: Germany will probalby lose Posen and upper silesia this time. Belgium as OTL, Romania perhaps as OTL if she joins the feast, Italy as OTL, France will perhaps get sourthern Sarre according the 1814 borders.
Well, lets see. If the Entente gained a boot on the ground, then the terms would be much crazier, based on the map proposed by a Russian minister before the war. Worse, Germany might be reduced to North German Federation, while losing the territories you mentioned.

Political effect: I expect that the Liberals would be able to take all the credits to them and then flay the Tories in 1918 election.
 
Well, lets see. If the Entente gained a boot on the ground, then the terms would be much crazier, based on the map proposed by a Russian minister before the war. Worse, Germany might be reduced to North German Federation, while losing the territories you mentioned.

Political effect: I expect that the Liberals would be able to take all the credits to them and then flay the Tories in 1918 election.

which map exactly?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The war is not going to get past 1917. Especially in the later phase we would see strategic bombings on the Ruhr or Saarland (I am not sure whether British bombers could reach Wilhelmshaven from Antwerp or not but unlikely; however if it is the case then good luck HSF).

Austria-Hungary would be badly partioned like IOTL, but they might merge with South German states. German Empire would be reduced to North German Federation, while losing Polish regions, East Prussia, Alsace Lorraine, Saar, Eupen-Malmedy and may be the whole Schlewig. Ottoman Empire would lose the Arab regions, Syria, Palestine, Iraq...and all the European regions including Constantinople.
 
thanks.
I'm not sure that the Allies could conduct strategic bombings even if, contrary to common beliefs, the English and French had relatively good, sturdy and reliable bombers for the time. But the doctrine for the the time was more about tactical bombings than properly strategic ones (bombing supplies, concentrations of artillery etc) If I'm not mistaken.
Anyway, about the russian war goals I roughly agree except for two points:
Constantinople, if the Ottomans indeed declare war, they will lose it but I don't know if the English would be pleased with the idea of a russian oblast in "Stamboul". The French wouldn't care (and the russophilia in France would probably create a benevolent neutrality about the problem) but it would need a powerful Russia, not much devastated or on the brink of civil war. Otherwise, some kind of Bulgarian-greek-russian condominium is more likely. But Constantinople alone is not enough, it had to be up to Nicea in the East.
Germany: no way in hell. The English would go full stop on this and even the French won't have enough influence to get this. Germany will lose Poznan and the Corridor as OTL, upper Silesia which is ethnically polish, at least the ethnically polish East Prussia (if not all of it). In the West, it is very likely that France could get Southern Sarre and the administration of the entire Sarre for 20 years. Denmark could -perhaps- get Flensburg and the Netherlands a little something. But a Germany cut in half would create such a void, it would be an immense "go to hell" to balance of powers policy that England try to maintain for centuries in Europe. And I'm not sure that Russia would want it either. A weakened Germany? Sure. Two Germanies? Very Very unlikely.
As for A-H, if the war ends 1917, it could (maybe) survive in a very diminished way: Austria, a very slightly bigger Hungary and a bigger Croatia could form a "catholic" regional power in Eastern Europe, introducing some balance of powers and avoiding a possible "anschluss". Serbia won't be happy but Russia would tell it to shut up in exchange for all the lands with Serbian majorities and minorities (which means a far greater Serbian than OTL with roughly 75 percents of Bosnia plus Macedonia and Montenegro). Croatia between Serbia and Austria would perhaps choose the latter in exchange for a truly multiethnic empire with protection of the languages, regional autonomies etc. Slovakia and the Czechs will form a united country anyway. Slovenia could end as a nominally independant state under the influence of Italy (as a way to satisfy them).
 
Top