WI German attack on both sides of Meuse at Verdun

[Fehérvári]

The initial German offensive at Verdun was quite successful, but given that the Germans only attacked East to the river, they quickly found themselves in crossfire from across the other bank of the Meuse, which hampered their forces. Had they attacked on both sides of the river, such problem could have been solved. The question is, how much could this help the Germans? What can they achieve?

There's also another thing, which I would like you to consider. The Eastern Front ITTL is a non-issue and the Germans don't have to reinforce A-H against the Brusilov Offensive.

Now, what are your thoughts? I'm eager to read them!

 

[Turrosh Mak]

B. H. Liddell-Hart speculates in his book "The Real War 1914-1918", that the initial attack on the east bank of the Meuse was intended to draw the French reserves across the river. Once that had happened, the main attack on the west side of the river would seal the trap, and open a breach in the trench lines too wide to be plugged. And Germany wins the war.

Hart came to this conclusion based on the emphasis placed on the failed attack on the west side of the Meuse at "Le Mort Homme". If the goal of the Verdun Offensive were merely attrition, no one day or battle would matter to such a degree.

 

[Fehérvári]

B. H. Liddell-Hart speculates in his book "The Real War 1914-1918", that the initial attack on the east bank of the Meuse was intended to draw the French reserves across the river. Once that had happened, the main attack on the west side of the river would seal the trap, and open a breach in the trench lines too wide to be plugged. And Germany wins the war.

Hart came to this conclusion based on the emphasis placed on the failed attack on the west side of the Meuse at "Le Mort Homme". If the goal of the Verdun Offensive were merely attrition, no one day or battle would matter to such a degree.

That sounds ambitious, too ambitious. From what I read, the emphasis on Le Mort Homme and surrounding heights was simply due to how vulnerable the German forces on the East bank were to artillery fire from said locations. Another thing I read was, that the "battle of attrition" idea regarding Verdun is increasingly less accepted among historians, and it's now considered by many to be a post-war justification of Falkenhayn for the sustaining of the battle.

 

[Germaniac]

I very strongly agree that the German failure to strike on the right bank basically lost the war for Germany. Had the Germans seized the right bank the French positions would be incapable of defending Verdun while also facing the crushing political necessity to hold the city... WW1 commanders were not known for seeing the inevitable and imo the French army would have destroyed itself in the defense.

 

[Fehérvári]

I very strongly agree that the German failure to strike on the right bank basically lost the war for Germany. Had the Germans seized the right bank the French positions would be incapable of defending Verdun while also facing the crushing political necessity to hold the city... WW1 commanders were not known for seeing the inevitable and imo the French army would have destroyed itself in the defense.

The West bank could probably see the German advance bog down at Boi Bourrus and neighbouring forts though. Still in such case Bras-sur-Meuse could be taken and the French last line of defense would be at Fort Belleville and Fort Souville. What do you think, which of these two forts would be easier for the Germans to take? Crossfire at Belleville could be a problem, but the terrain itself might be more favourable. What do you think?