Which front Germany should focus first on WWI, Western or Eastern one?

[Rex Romanum]

AFAIK it has been universally agreed that, if in WWI Germany has focused the attacks on just one front and went defensive on the other one, the Germans could have won the War.

However, the question is now: which front should Germany focus first?

I've seen arguments from both sides, which mostly boil down to these:

Pro "West First"
- the distance from Germany to Paris is shorter than to St. Petersburg
- if France is secured Britain will have no way to invade Germany by land
- Italy might join the CP to gang up on a defeated France

Pro "East First"
- going defensive against France means no British involvement (at least not from the start)
- Russia is far more underdeveloped than France which means easier to attack
- Austria-Hungary will be far more relieved

What do you think, AH.com?

 

[David Floyd]

Given that they went West first historically, and as far as I know were at their limits logistically already, logic and hindsight would say to go East, stay defensive against France, and stay out of Belgium, which may delay the British entry.

 

[History Learner]

Achieving an "Eastern orientation" in the initial months is the easiest option to take (The Kaiser attempted this at the last minute) and reflects a greater understanding that the War will not be quick. However, the OTL strategy could've have achieved total success with a bit more luck, as demonstrated here.

 

[Copaczin]

Considering how Russia fared against the smaller part of the German army (Tannenberg, etc.) Going up against their main force from the start would likely mean capitulation earlier than OTL, possibly in 1916. This means that Bulgaria and the Ottomans would probably join the Central Powers sooner, making everything east of France friendly territory for the Kaiser. An added benefit is that this means Germany is slightly less starved for resources than OTL, meaning any offensives in the west will do better than in 1917. Finally, the Austro-Hungarian empire will have lost far fewer soldiers, culminating in France and Britain having to fight the full force of Germany, Austro-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire. The critical point then is if France can be forced to sue for peace before America gets dragged into the war. If not, the war will drag on just as it did in OTL, with a later Allied victory or stalemate.

 

[CaliGuy]

Given that they went West first historically, and as far as I know were at their limits logistically already, logic and hindsight would say to go East, stay defensive against France, and stay out of Belgium, which may delay the British entry.

Also, avoid pissing off Britain in the pre-World War I years by engaging in a naval arms race with it.

 

[Thomas1195]

Go East you would deprive Britain of a casus belli

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Actually going on the offensive in the East is a worse option, as the Russians would deploy deeper, not attack, plus then use their traditionally skilled defenses to wear down the Germans and nip at them with their cavalry. Without the major losses to artillery and trained men in 1914 the Russians would have been pretty tough on the defensive, while the French would bash away in the East until they hit something of use, plus not lose 30% of their industry and over 90% of their coal and iron resources, plus most of their best farmland. Yes, Britain isn't in the war, but Germany would have a hard as hell time importing thanks to Britain being pro-Entente. The German military was rightfully afraid of attacking East and dealing with the Russian strategic depth, plus knew they could not get a knock out blow and would be stuck in a two front unwinnable war.

 

[Deleted member 98954]

Also, avoid pissing off Britain in the pre-World War I years by engaging in a naval arms race with it.

Very good idea. Spend the resources on beefing up the Western land defenses instead, in preparation for the invasion of Ukraine.

 

[CaliGuy]

Actually going on the offensive in the East is a worse option, as the Russians would deploy deeper, not attack, plus then use their traditionally skilled defenses to wear down the Germans and nip at them with their cavalry. Without the major losses to artillery and trained men in 1914 the Russians would have been pretty tough on the defensive, while the French would bash away in the East until they hit something of use, plus not lose 30% of their industry and over 90% of their coal and iron resources, plus most of their best farmland. Yes, Britain isn't in the war, but Germany would have a hard as hell time importing thanks to Britain being pro-Entente. The German military was rightfully afraid of attacking East and dealing with the Russian strategic depth, plus knew they could not get a knock out blow and would be stuck in a two front unwinnable war.

Hang on--why exactly would a pro-Entente but neutral Britain make it difficult for Germany to import things?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Also, avoid pissing off Britain in the pre-World War I years by engaging in a naval arms race with it.

They didn't. They built up their fleet to compete with France and Russia, their likely enemies, and Britain declared a naval race to excite the public and get them to authorize funds to rebuild their navy once the HMS Dreadnought made the entire fleet obsolete. Britain had threatened Germany with blockades before as a means of political leverage, so if anything the Germans were the ones responding to the Brits building the HMS Dreadnought and rendering the entire world's Battleship inventories obsolete in one stroke, plus threatening them. Plus the 'naval race' was over in 1912 when Germany didn't not sign any additional naval laws, while also approaching Britain with a deal on naval ratios, which Britain refused; despite that refusal the Germans stopped expanding their fleet. British propaganda defined the historiography of the 'naval race' which really only existed as a tool to get the British government to spend more on upgrading the British navy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_naval_arms_race

he German aim was to build a fleet that would be 2/3 the size of the British navy.[2] This plan was sparked by the threat of the British Foreign Office in March 1897, after the British invasion of Transvaal that started the Boer War, to blockade the German coast and thereby cripple the German economy, if Germany would intervene in the conflict in Transvaal.[3] From 1905 on, the British navy developed plans for such a blockade that was a central part of British strategy.[4]

In reaction to this challenge to their naval supremacy, from 1902 to 1910, the British [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy']Royal Navy embarked on its own massive expansion to keep ahead of the Germans. This competition came to focus on the revolutionary new ships based on HMS Dreadnought, which was launched in 1906.[/URL]

In 1912, the German chancellor [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobald_von_Bethmann-Hollweg']Bethmann Hollweg ended the naval arms race. His aim was to secure an understanding with the British to end the more and more isolated position of Germany. The increasing size of the Russian army compelled the Germans to spend more money on their army and therefore less on the navy. This initiative led to the Haldane Mission. Germany proposed a treaty in which Germany would accept British naval superiority in exchange of a British neutrality in a war in which Germany could not be said to be the aggressor. This proposal was rejected by Britain. For Britain there was nothing to gain by such a treaty since their naval superiority was already secure, although the British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey favoured a more assertive policy toward Germany[8][/URL]

 

[Deleted member 98954]

Hang on--why exactly would a pro-Entente but neutral Britain make it difficult for Germany to import things?

Same reason why neutral America did. Germany had pissed everyone off by its high-speed militarization. It appeared to want a bigger empire, at their expense.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Hang on--why exactly would a pro-Entente but neutral Britain make it difficult for Germany to import things?

They demanded neutrality in the English Channel, which mean no escorting German warships could move with convoys through the English Channel into the Atlantic, which gave the French free reign on attacking German shipping. The Royal Navy would enforce the no warships in the Channel rule and declared it IOTL at the start of the war. So German ships would have to route around Britain to the North, with would give the French knowledge of where the German merchant ships would be when launching patrols in the Atlantic, plus the Brits could observe and report, especially if German escorts were moving with convoys. It isn't that Germany couldn't import, just that the constraints that the Brits would put on the Germans would make it very tough.

 

[CaliGuy]

They demanded neutrality in the English Channel, which mean no escorting German warships could move with convoys through the English Channel into the Atlantic, which gave the French free reign on attacking German shipping. The Royal Navy would enforce the no warships in the Channel rule and declared it IOTL at the start of the war. So German ships would have to route around Britain to the North, with would give the French knowledge of where the German merchant ships would be when launching patrols in the Atlantic, plus the Brits could observe and report, especially if German escorts were moving with convoys. It isn't that Germany couldn't import, just that the constraints that the Brits would put on the Germans would make it very tough.

Who had a stronger Navy back in 1914--Germany or France?

 

[CaliGuy]

They didn't. They built up their fleet to compete with France and Russia, their likely enemies, and Britain declared a naval race to excite the public and get them to authorize funds to rebuild their navy once the HMS Dreadnought made the entire fleet obsolete. Britain had threatened Germany with blockades before as a means of political leverage, so if anything the Germans were the ones responding to the Brits building the HMS Dreadnought and rendering the entire world's Battleship inventories obsolete in one stroke, plus threatening them. Plus the 'naval race' was over in 1912 when Germany didn't not sign any additional naval laws, while also approaching Britain with a deal on naval ratios, which Britain refused; despite that refusal the Germans stopped expanding their fleet. British propaganda defined the historiography of the 'naval race' which really only existed as a tool to get the British government to spend more on upgrading the British navy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_naval_arms_race

Why was Germany threatening to intervene in South Africa in the first place, though?

 

[naraic]

They didn't. They built up their fleet to compete with France and Russia, their likely enemies,

People say this but in reality the German fleet was head and shoulder above eit her or both of the Russian and French fleets and this without taking into account the French need to minting forces in the med.

In terms of battleships France had 4 in commission to the start of WW1 and Russia had none in commision. For comparison Germany had 15 commissioned battleships at the time.

Yeah France had the most modern non dreadnought large ships and 6 more dreadnoughts to fit out before 1916 finished while Russia had 4 more to fit out before 1916 finished but that only brings Russia/France up to a combined 14 by the time Germany will have 19 dreadnoughts. Not to mention the German advantage in battle cruisers (No French or Russian designs).

By the way I'm not counting Russian Black Sea fleet as it's unable to leave the Black Sea.

 

[Riain]

It's a bit of a thing here that going east is better, but that doesn't make it so. Going East isn't a recipe for victory, it merely denies Germany of the advantages of knocking France down and getting the naval bases on the Belgian and possibly French coast.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Who had a stronger Navy back in 1914--Germany or France?

The German navy was short ranged and limited to the North Sea if they couldn't use the English Channel which in the event of war was shut by the Royal Navy to both sides. Which left the Atlantic to the French. German fleet numbers mean nothing if they can't actually use them outside the North Sea.

Why was Germany threatening to intervene in South Africa in the first place, though?

They weren't, they were asking that their business interests in the area be protected as the British invaded and the British ambassador threatened the Germans with blockade if they dared intervene, something the Germans did not even mention in the discussion.

People say this but in reality the German fleet was head and shoulder above eit her or both of the Russian and French fleets and this without taking into account the French need to minting forces in the med.

In terms of battleships France had 4 in commission to the start of WW1 and Russia had none in commision. For comparison Germany had 15 commissioned battleships at the time.

Yeah France had the most modern non dreadnought large ships and 6 more dreadnoughts to fit out before 1916 finished while Russia had 4 more to fit out before 1916 finished but that only brings Russia/France up to a combined 14 by the time Germany will have 19 dreadnoughts. Not to mention the German advantage in battle cruisers (No French or Russian designs).

By the way I'm not counting Russian Black Sea fleet as it's unable to leave the Black Sea.

At the start of WW1 that would be correct, the German fleet was stronger than the combined Russo-French fleets...but that was only because of the build up from 1898-1912. They had a smaller fleet than both combined until about 1910 IIRC. So the German build up was initial to make sure the Franco-Russian Entente couldn't combine to blockade them, then to respond to the need to reinvent their BB fleet due to the Dreadnought revolution. The Brits were too building up, so the Germans were responding to that too.

 

[naraic]

It's a bit of a thing here that going east is better, but that doesn't make it so. Going East isn't a recipe for victory, it merely denies Germany of the advantages of knocking France down and getting the naval bases on the Belgian and possibly French coast.

Not to mention the in the East Germany deployed almost as many men as they could support with Russian gauge railways.

If Germany wanted to go East with a major part of the army a decision had to be made with 5 or 6 years notice to develop a vastly larger military railway unit

 

[Riain]

At the start of WW1 that would be correct, the German fleet was stronger than the combined Russo-French fleets...but that was only because of the build up from 1898-1912. They had a smaller fleet than both combined until about 1910 IIRC. So the German build up was initial to make sure the Franco-Russian Entente couldn't combine to blockade them, then to respond to the need to reinvent their BB fleet due to the Dreadnought revolution. The Brits were too building up, so the Germans were responding to that too.

And the Russians threw their fleet away at Tsushima, but were well on their way to having a big navy as the war broke out.

 

[Riain]

Not to mention the in the East Germany deployed almost as many men as they could support with Russian gauge railways.

If Germany wanted to go East with a major part of the army a decision had to be made with 5 or 6 years notice to develop a vastly larger military railway unit

The latest plan for the east in 1912-13 was for 4 Armies of 42 divisions to go into East Prussia; 1 raised locally, 1 railed in, 1 detraining west of the Vistula and marching into East Prussia and 1 arriving later.

There were no armies to be sent to Silesia.