In OTL Germany had a very good chance to force France to surrender after the Battle of Marne in 1914, but they lost their courage and retreated. But what if they pressed on and thus France was forced to surrender? What would happen next? And who would have won the Great war?
WI: Germany defeated France in 1914
- Thread starter Barbarossa Rotbart
- Start date
Is this supposed to be a joke? Germany didn`t lose on the Marne because they "lost their courage and retreated"....
'Lost their courage'? That's a… unique… way to describe the situation of being forced to retreat by a very large Anglo-French counteroffensive.
If France surrendered, obviously the Central Powers would have overrun Western Europe and crushed Russia… but I doubt that this PoD would be sufficient to cause the fall of Paris. And does the fall of Paris necessarily mean a French surrender? Maybe, maybe not.
Of course, it doesn't change the fact that the Central Powers would have lost all the territory they owned outside Europe and failed to get any of it back from the British, but nothing can change that fact unless you change which great powers were on which sides of the First World War to start with. In any case, victory over France and Russia will be more than enough to compensate for the loss of Germany's colonies; however much money the Germans want, they can just steal it from France and Russia by 'peace treaty' (the 1871 Treaty of Frankfurt, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the Treaty of Versailles come to mind).
You misunderstood me. They've lost the battle of Marne and retreated after the battle. And this retreat was the big mistake. If they have pressed on which was despite the lost battle still possible France would have been forced to surrender.
If they pressed on the troops would be devastatingly tired and low on morale, failing all objectives and be pushed back further than the retreat.
The German Army wasn't prone to caution and defensive behaviour. They attacked as far as they could, then fell back when a large counteroffensive struck them. What would you suggest that they do? Fight for every last square inch of ground near Paris? That sounds like a good way for the Germans to be forced to retreat in poorer order than OTL due to a high concentration of Anglo-French troops forcing them backwards, at best (for Germany), or to have some of their units get their supply lines cut off and encircled and be forced to surrender, at worst.
That might make a nice TL: the war is over by Christmas in 1914 and the Entente wins.
That might make a nice TL: the war is over by Christmas in 1914 and the Entente wins.
It would be little more than a disorganized rabble attacking organized forces who've just won a major battle; retreat might well become a rout in those circumstances.
And the Entente would likely follow them and retake a lot of territory in the process. But is there a German commander insane enough to order that?
Last edited:
I agree! An advance/or no retreat after the Battle of the Marne would habe been susicidal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne
One main French advantage at the Battle of the Marne were the Interior lines , they simply could redeploy reinforcements much faster than the Germans
Nevertheless i agree that Germany at least had the possibility prior to the Battle of the Marne to be victorious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lorraine
For example "going all in" after/during the Battle of Lorraine would have been an option. I mean leaving only weak forces at the German-French frontier (Alsace and Lorraine) and redeploying the other armies at the coming "Marne theatre".
Because Russia AND Britain could mobilize afterwards a huge military potential - not achieving a great victory against the French in 1914 was a long term defeat.
So having a more risky strategy and concentrate (more) troops at the Battle of the Marne could/should have been a viable option.
It is amazing that Germany nevertheless hold out IOTL so long - partly because Russia was weaker than estimated before WWI.
It is a popular myth that Schlieffen talked about "making the right wing strong" - maybe it was right
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
Well the obvious solution was to not change the Schlieffen Plan that weakened the German Army strength in the north, which could have encircled Paris a lot sooner.
So you're suggesting that instead of retreating after a lost battle, the German forces should have thrown everything to the front and frantically, under blood-curdling battle cries, fought to the last man? Come on buddy, give us a break - we're not Klingons!
But on a more serious note now: As some other posters have already pointed out, something like this would ultimately have had the opposite effect of what might have been intended, and the Western front would soon have turned into a meat grinder for the exhausted, worn-out, and demoralised German troops. So yes, the war might have been over in 1914 - but certainly not with a German/CP victory.
The scenario I imagine(and I make no claim to great plausibility) is that after word reaches the Kaiser of Tannenberg he demands an equally decisive victory in the West. Falkenhayn fearful of being replaced by Hindenburg and Luddendorff orders his troops into a frontal assault and it ends in disaster. The war really is over by Christmas....
Which will be awkward in the future, because the European powers won't realise the horrific casualties that static warfare can generate and anti-war sentiment won't make much headway after such a short and fairly easy Entente victory and a mostly painless German defeat (France and Russia are unlikely to demand such enormous, crippling reparations when they don't have all the enormous damage to be repaired and the many years of increasing hatred of the enemy). That sounds like a recipe for something really hideous when the next war comes along, probably much earlier than OTL's WW2…
Tank development may also be retarded and military aircraft for that matter but rifles, machine guns, and artillery will probably keep evolving so yeah the next war will probably be horrendous in terms of front line fighting.
Yes I agree - sacrifying German territory in Alsace + weakening the German left wing in order to give the right wing in Belgium/Northern France the possibility to succeed would have been a viable option.
Schlieffen plan was a big gamble - so you have "to go all in". A more aggressive/risky Schlieffen might have worked or might have failed nontheless but a "cautious" Schlieffen (as IOTL) just couldnt work right from the start.