What were the German War Plans before the Schlieffen Plan

I can't speak to the German side, as I'm not particularly familiar with it, but I think they would still have to move through Belgium to some extent. France had fairly substantial fortifications and the terrain advantage on the Franco-German border in Lorraine. If the Germans attack through their wouldn't they run into essentially the same issue the French did going the other direction in 1914? Plus, German military theory was heavily reliant on the idea of envelopment. To me, that seems to motivate for a swing through Belgium to envelope the French armies like they did in 1914. However, in 1911 the French were still using Plan XVI, not XVII, which was much more defensive in nature. It also gave more weight to a German advance through Belgium and allocated, IIRC, 7 corps to the Belgian border to counter a German advance. I don't believe Plan XVI envisioned an offensive into Lorraine at this point, as that concept emerged only in Joffre's later rewrites of the plan.

As a fun sidebar, ITTL if/when the French shift to a less visible uniform it won't be OTL's horizon blue ones, but the "Resada" style that they trialled in 1911 and 1912 but abandoned when there was an outcry against abandoning the red pants... So the French would be wearing green and brown, not blue!

I agree, they would probably still go through Belgium, but possibly only south of the Meuse.
 
Maybe not Poincare but ... for sake of TTL ... maybe let a french Gabriele D'Annunzio type, trying to copy Leon Gambetta pop up [was there any figure, that with some butterfly-PoD-power could become that ?).

If such a guy trys to pull something alike D'Annunzio did with Fiume only with Mulhouse in Alsac ... or his 'fly ovwer Vienna' but only over Cologne (Berlin's too far away from France for the planes of that time) during the high tide of the Morocco crisis ?

Might well become a 'casus belli' for the germans.

Frankly, I probably shouldn't have posted all that about plausibility. First, the thread owner didn't ask the question. Second, I'm not infrequently wrong about things. And third, there is almost always a way to spark a war!

You're quite right -- circumstances certainly could lead to an Agadir-sparked war in 1911. It might have to be a very particular set of circumstances, but that was true of the circumstances and events leading to the OTL war, anyway!
 
I agree, they would probably still go through Belgium, but possibly only south of the Meuse.
That would make sense. Thank you for posting the information in your previous post, it is extremely informative!

For what its worth, I don't see a way for the German incursion into Belgium not to expand to the rest of the country eventually, though that does presume the French stall the initial onslaught. Leaving Belgium unoccupied leaves it open as potentially vulnerable flank on the German armies moving through Belgium and into France. Perhaps a scenario could develop where both sides are moving into Belgium to try and turn the other's flank similar to OTL's Race to the Sea?

It hasn't been brought up before, but Britain will unquestionably join the war, even if Germany limits its incursion into Belgium. IIRC, the UK was the most belligerent nation during the Agadir Crisis and all of the factors that pulled Britain into the war in 1914 are applicable here too.
 
That would make sense. Thank you for posting the information in your previous post, it is extremely informative!

For what its worth, I don't see a way for the German incursion into Belgium not to expand to the rest of the country eventually, though that does presume the French stall the initial onslaught. Leaving Belgium unoccupied leaves it open as potentially vulnerable flank on the German armies moving through Belgium and into France. Perhaps a scenario could develop where both sides are moving into Belgium to try and turn the other's flank similar to OTL's Race to the Sea?

It hasn't been brought up before, but Britain will unquestionably join the war, even if Germany limits its incursion into Belgium. IIRC, the UK was the most belligerent nation during the Agadir Crisis and all of the factors that pulled Britain into the war in 1914 are applicable here too.

You're welcome... but Zuber did all the work, lol.

On the war expanding into the main part of Belgium, I don't know. The French initially haven't the (front-line, active duty) troops to want to risk this. The Belgian army wasn't large (smaller in 1911 than 1914, I think) and might consider securing the Heartland to be all they can realistically do. And both the Belgians and British might well prefer that such an expansion not happen.

On the British entering the war -- quite possibly. But without the need to appease a strong Russia, or to avoid angering an intact Franco-Russian Entente that might well win the war, some of the motive is absent.
Further, with Russia ripping out its heart in civil war, and therefore terribly weakening the Entente, and with France likely soft-peddling in order to avoid war, Britain might well not be as aggressive in her approach as OTL.

I think it possible that Grey would be *genuinely* trying hard to forestall potential conflict this time.

But I won't claim to be especially wise about this Crisis; only that circumstances would be rather different, with Russian support lacking.

Edit: on the other hand, with Russia in turmoil, the Kaiser might try to push back much harder (if the French try their OTL dirty little trick in Morocco), or even originate a crisis himself (even if the French play by the rules). Not only would this make a war more likely, it would also make British entry more likely. So maybe what is needed is a Crisis wholly created by a pushier Kaiser.
Maybe he thinks the time is right to force alterations to the Algeciras Conference?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your replies, but the war I'm trying to envision is one that arises out of the First Moroccan Crisis, in 1905, not the Second Moroccan Crisis in 1911. My apologies if that wasn't clear
 
Thanks for your replies, but the war I'm trying to envision is one that arises out of the First Moroccan Crisis, in 1905, not the Second Moroccan Crisis in 1911. My apologies if that wasn't clear

No problem! We just assumed 1911.

German war plans from about 1901 until about 1906 were defensive. Why?
France had the quick-firing 75mm gun, and Germany didn't. Von Schliefen knew that under the circumstances, it would be suicidal to attack France.

Fielding of the Krupp 1896 n/A quick-firer only began in 1905 and was complete in 1908.

So German doctrine in those years was counter-punch based, and assumed France attacking.

Let me rustle up maps and such...
 
So, erm, for the German 1904/05 plan...

upload_2017-5-2_21-17-43.jpeg


The above is Zuber's map describing the plan.

Aufmarsch I (1904/05) was for a France-only war.

25 corps and 15 reserve divisions (the reserves were apparently not yet organized into corps, with corps artillery, etc) were all deployed against France, a total of 67 divisions.

4 reserve divisions were left in the East (even without Russia being expected to intervene, SOMETHING had to be left there, I guess).

1st Army had 4 AK and 4 RD (Army Corps; Reserve Divisions)

2nd Army had 4 AK and 2 RD

3rd Army had 3 AK and 4 RD

4th Army had 4 AK

5th Army had 4 AK

6th Army had 4 AK

7th Army had 3 AK and 5 RD

The Generalstabsreisen (General Staff Ride Wargame) of 1904, unfortunately, did not involve the actual deployment scheme. But it assumed the French would invade, and the decisive battle was fought by German forces conducting a pincer attack from Metz and Strasbourg.

This thinking at least accords with the obviously territorial defensive stance displayed by the actual deployment scheme.

Incidentally, Von Schliefen replayed the 1904 Staff Ride wargame, due to objections from the participating officers about how he handled the first one. In this second game, the Germans deployed in Lorraine, around Metz, and from Cologne to Prum, while the French deployed evenly along the frontier. The French surrounded the German armies along the Moselle, and won the game.

I'll post details of France's 1903 Plan XV, next.
 
France Plan XV, 1903-1906.
upload_2017-5-2_21-27-34.jpeg

1st Army had 4 corps
2nd Army - 5 corps
4th Army - 4 corps
3rd Army (in reserve behind 1st Army) - 4 corps
5th Army (in reserve behind 3rd) - 3 corps
Each "RES" block represents a group of 4 reserve divisions.
Note that 19th Corps was to arrive from Algeria, and 21st Corps was to be formed from excess units in the Alps.

The French expected the Germans to attack (the Germans had no such intention!); at that point, 1st French Army (the advance guard) would attack the oncoming Germans and try to fix them in place. The flank and reserve armies would then maneuver to strike the German flanks. This is in line with Bonnal's theories about security and mass of maneuver; Bonnal was the contemporary idol of French operational theorists.
 
And finally, the first "Schliefen Plan" of the type with which we are familiar: the 1905/06 Aufmarsch I.
upload_2017-5-2_21-43-40.jpeg

Note how much farther north the armies are deployed, compared to just the year before. The idea was that, if war came, the German Army would have to attack, since the French presumably wouldn't due to their ally being preoccupied.

1st Army: 3 AK, 4 RK ("Army Corps"; "Reserve Corps")
2nd Army: 4 AK, 1 RK
3rd Army: 4 AK, 2.5 RK
4th Army: 3 AK
5th Army: 3 AK
6th Army: 3 AK
7th Army: 3 AK
8th Army: 3 AK, 3 RK
Total: 72 divisions (52 active duty, 20 reserve), 11 cavalry divisions, 26.5 Landwehr Brigades. The ENTIRE German Army. Ersatz units would be formed from five Corps administrative areas in Germany, to garrison the northern coast.

Note that the plan assumed an Italian army guarding Alsace. In 1905, this might even happen (not sure, myself). However, it was recognized that if Britain entered the war, Italy would probably stay neutral.

1st and 2nd Armies were only to cross the Belgian and/or Dutch borders upon order from OHL.

Now, this plan only became effective in 1906, due to the German over-winter planning cycle. So in a war commencing in 1905, they would presumably still be using the old, compact, 1904/05 plan -- unless they for some reason made special provisions to update the plan out-of-cycle (but they never did so historically, so it seems unlikely).

Edit: Zuber also points out that the reason the German deployment extended so far north, was that (in the absence of strong, guaranteed help from Russia, which was then at war with Japan), the Germans thought France unlikely to attack, and thought France likely to extend her deployment further to the north in a more-defensive stance. It seems the Germans believed that, if war came about, they would have to attack rather than merely stand by to counter-punch.
In fact, France not only declined to change her plan to a defensive one, she still intended to launch a pincer attack around Metz!
Such a situation had been wargamed before, in the 1904 Generalstabsreisen West. On that occasion, the French attacked while the theoretical German right wing was trying to advance through southern Belgium. The right wing was forced to cancel its move through Belgium, and swing almost directly south to rescue the situation around Metz. (note that this wargame was NOT based on the actual German war plan of the time; apparently Schliefen was experimenting with the "swing through Belgium" idea)
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
As of the 1908-09 plan, Dutch neutrality was to be violated if 2nd Army couldn't capture Liege in a swift coup de main. I suspect this would've still been the case in 1910-11. It was only in 1913-14 that Germany possessed the mobile, super-heavy siege guns required to quickly demolish the Liege defenses even if the coup de main attempt failed (which it did OTL).
The Arming of Europe by David G Herrmann indicated the Germans had 6x 305mm artillery pieces as early as 1905/06. Further, I understood the role of the super-heavy artillery in reducing the Belgium fortresses was somewhat overstated - ultimately most of the forts were overcome by high volume of lessor heavy artillery.
I'll shut up now! :)
I second the sentiments from NoMommsen
As a fun sidebar, ITTL if/when the French shift to a less visible uniform it won't be OTL's horizon blue ones, but the "Resada" style that they trialled in 1911 and 1912 but abandoned when there was an outcry against abandoning the red pants... So the French would be wearing green and brown, not blue!
Did the uniform trial extend to the entire French army?
On the war expanding into the main part of Belgium, I don't know. The French initially haven't the (front-line, active duty) troops to want to risk this. The Belgian army wasn't large (smaller in 1911 than 1914, I think) and might consider securing the Heartland to be all they can realistically do. And both the Belgians and British might well prefer that such an expansion not happen.
I understand the Belgium war plans (which like everyone else contemplated a German advance through the Ardennes) alternated between actively defending the Ardennes and holding the line behind their fortresses. If the Belgium elects to defend its heartlands behind its fortresses, it is improbable the British would involve itself on the continent in 1905/06 for the sake of Germany cutting through a back section of Belgium.
Thanks for your replies, but the war I'm trying to envision is one that arises out of the First Moroccan Crisis, in 1905, not the Second Moroccan Crisis in 1911. My apologies if that wasn't clear
The Arming of Europe by David G Herrmann contemplated a Franco-German war in 1905/06 and concluded the Germans would 'probably' have prevailed - after recounting in detail the vast superiority of the French light artillery and doctrine of the time. He cites overall numbers, superiority in German heavy artillery, lack of aerial reconnaissance and overall fewer machine guns as favouring the Germans on an offensive. Conversely, Zuber suggests the Germans would be in for in for a rude awaking in the case of a 1905/06 Franco-German war, but largely leaves it to the reader's imagination why this would be the case.
 
Boonz,
Great info, thanks!
You're right, Zuber refers to the French superiority in light artillery, but doesn't consider any other factors in making his judgement.
I'll have to read "The Arming of Europe".
 
Alright, thanks guys. What do you think the Germans should do if Britain is already in the war and neither side had moved because of the defensive plans on both sides?
 

BooNZ

Banned
Alright, thanks guys. What do you think the Germans should do if Britain is already in the war and neither side had moved because of the defensive plans on both sides?
Sue for peace - Imperial Russia will be recovering from its Asian adventure - whatever British blockade is in place is only going to get stronger - and Germany is going to run out of nitrates, long before Haber-Bosch theorize industrial production.
 
Sue for peace - Imperial Russia will be recovering from its Asian adventure - whatever British blockade is in place is only going to get stronger - and Germany is going to run out of nitrates, long before Haber-Bosch theorize industrial production.
And if its the same conditions but in a France v Germany only war?
 
Unfortunately I don't know details of France's fortification status. Wikipedia says of Fort Douaumont:
"It has a total surface area of 30,000 square metres and is approximately 400 metres long, with two subterranean levels protected by a steel reinforced concrete roof 12 metres thick resting on a sand cushion. These improvements had been completed by 1903." And also says that improvements continued right up to 1914.

So I would suggest that France's premier fortifications were approximately as strong, relative to offensive capabilities, in 1905 as they were in 1914.

But without knowing details, I wouldn't swear to it. Some very significant shortcomings might've been identified and corrected from 1905-1914, and some aspects of relative strength may have diminished. Sorry I can't give a better answer!
 
Top