WI: Germany doesn't invade Belgium in 1914?

Let's say that the German high command decides that violating Belgian neutrality would pose an unacceptable risk of British involvement, and therefore abandon the idea of marching through Belgium to get at France. What plans would they adopt instead to deal with the French? And with what result?
 
If Germany refrains from invading Belgium, the only thing that it need do with respect to France is defend along the Franco-German frontier. This, according to Hermann von Staabs, a German officer who ran the Railway Department of the Great General Staff before the war, could have been done with relatively modest forces, thereby freeing the lion's share of the German field army to operate against the Russians.

The French attack against Germany, made all but inevitable by the terms of a pre-war agreement between France and Russia, would not have gone well. It is, moreover, quite possible that, in the absence of the spirit of national solidarity that, in our time line, was created by the German invasion of France, a series of failed attacks would have resulted in widespread mutiny.

While this was going on, it is quite possible that Italy, freed of the fear of the consequences of war against the British Empire, would have honored its commitment to the Triple Alliance. Similarly, Japan might take advantage of the situation to demand concessions from both Russia and France.

In such a scenario, the war would not have lasted for long.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
In the early months Germany can hold off French offensives with probably under half its forces. The Germans can push the Russians out of Poland and and. with the Austrians, push the Russians back from Austrian territory. The Austrians can likely finish off the Serbians in the 1914 campaign, which probably brings in Bulgaria as an ally for the CP. This all happens whether or not Britain declares war on Germany.

At this point, in the early months of 1915, the CP would have completed the original Austrian mission of beating Serbia, and its own territories would be fairly inviolate based on effective defense in the west and effective offensive action in the east.

The Germans and Austrians and Bulgarians are in a good position to offer a white peace at that point, based on the current battle-lines. By this point Germany's only lost Togoland and parts of Kamerun to the French.

Will the French and Russians except a white peace? They certainly are capable of keeping up the fight, since Russia is only superficially wounded and France can mobilize more of its manpower and industry. At the same time their tactical and operational prospects for gaining substantial ground back from the Austrians and Germans are quite poor. If they persist in attacking for longer they will probably take disproportionate casualties.

If the British have declared war in solidarity with the Entente, Germany is blockaded and more of its colonies are swept up. However, the blockade is going to take at least a year to really bite. Even declaring war and sending the existing BEF into France does not allow a breakout on to German territory, at least if the avenue of attack is limited to the Franco-German border. If the Entente widens the front by going through Belgium then things are more fluid in the west. The French will have more manpower to work with they can conscript from the entirety of their national territory.

This probably means, even in a long war, the British do not have an imperative to greatly enlarge the BEF since why not let the French continue to the bleeding. Unless things take a big turn for the worse for the Entente, Britain probably won't be able to justify conscription.
 
In the early months Germany can hold off French offensives with probably under half its forces. The Germans can push the Russians out of Poland and and. with the Austrians, push the Russians back from Austrian territory. The Austrians can likely finish off the Serbians in the 1914 campaign, which probably brings in Bulgaria as an ally for the CP. This all happens whether or not Britain declares war on Germany.

At this point, in the early months of 1915, the CP would have completed the original Austrian mission of beating Serbia, and its own territories would be fairly inviolate based on effective defense in the west and effective offensive action in the east.

The Germans and Austrians and Bulgarians are in a good position to offer a white peace at that point, based on the current battle-lines. By this point Germany's only lost Togoland and parts of Kamerun to the French.

Will the French and Russians except a white peace? They certainly are capable of keeping up the fight, since Russia is only superficially wounded and France can mobilize more of its manpower and industry. At the same time their tactical and operational prospects for gaining substantial ground back from the Austrians and Germans are quite poor. If they persist in attacking for longer they will probably take disproportionate casualties.

If the British have declared war in solidarity with the Entente, Germany is blockaded and more of its colonies are swept up. However, the blockade is going to take at least a year to really bite. Even declaring war and sending the existing BEF into France does not allow a breakout on to German territory, at least if the avenue of attack is limited to the Franco-German border. If the Entente widens the front by going through Belgium then things are more fluid in the west. The French will have more manpower to work with they can conscript from the entirety of their national territory.

This probably means, even in a long war, the British do not have an imperative to greatly enlarge the BEF since why not let the French continue to the bleeding. Unless things take a big turn for the worse for the Entente, Britain probably won't be able to justify conscription.

A strategic defense to the West and greater offensive to the East should compel Russia to retreat and hope to trade space for time, a thing that emboldens the CPs but weakens them. I suspect Germany actually sits on some portion of French territory opposite the Franco-German frontier, a thing that should have truly forced France to bleed white. We can debate if Britain would go to war, I think the balance is tipped towards non-belligerency, but I accept they can indeed enter the war. The BEF is likely lost in some offensive push, otherwise it wants to deploy into Belgium and that should be opposed by Belgium, here the British are more compelled to find some secondary place to use their Army in conjunction with sea power, i.e. the Dardanelles or its facsimile.

I would suspect the CP have won too much to let go the laurels and face the choice, shift West to take down France or finish Russia. That coin toss is beyond my prescience, but I think Russia has lost the more valuable pieces and hundred more kilometers of depth is daunting enough to turn eyes towards the bitter old enemy. 1916 should see the Germany offensive designed to vanquish France. If the British joined the war despite Germany honoring Belgian neutrality I would suspect the flood crashes over her yet, the Germans will arrive like the Huns and be bloody, they are no longer jittery but embittered, they will hit as hard as they can and expect to defeat France, this time fore eternity.

Again we can argue if Germany can succeed in this offensive but if she does then we see a harsh peace imposed, Britain cannot really be defeated by Germany, but Britain is fighting for what? Russia should be unraveling and France breaking or broken, the future will be a bipolar cold war, the continent versus the British, it will be a replay of Napoleon's dreams, but in Black, White and Red. Germany can only gain her colonies if she is reasonable and Britain can only avoid a costly troubled peace if she can accept the continent will never bow to her influence again. I think we certainly lay the pave stones to another war to decide if Germany or Britain will be supreme.
 
The other really lengthy thread is more focused on the British reaction, which is either to aid France and Russia as much as possible without actually going to war (majority view) or jumping right in anyway or even invading Belgium themselves (minority view), with in-between options of finding a reason to go to war later or starting a war with Turkey.
 
Let's say that the German high command decides that violating Belgian neutrality would pose an unacceptable risk of British involvement, and therefore abandon the idea of marching through Belgium to get at France. What plans would they adopt instead to deal with the French? And with what result?

Someone should see whether "Germany does not invade Belgium" or Sealion gets more threads overall....
 
My short answer:

1. For various reasons discussed on the other thread, I'm persuaded that Britain stays neutral at least until 1915, while pretty much financing the French and Russian efforts. On the Western Front, the British army really was not much of a factor until 1916 and the blockade took awhile to get going, though no blockade will increasingly be a factor. But there are big diplomatic butterflies, the USA is not as tilted towards the Entente, Japan stays neutral and so likely do both Italy and Turkey.

2. Russia is not as screwed as you think because they benefit from more British and French assistance, plus there was alot of slack in their war effort that could be drawn on if they are the main theater, and if Turkey remains neutral much of the Caucasus army is available to plug gaps in their frontlines. Plus butterflies could lead to a better operational management of their armies.

3. More German forces on the Eastern Front helps Austria-Hungary, even better if Italy stays neutral. At a minimum they don't lose Prmyzl.

4. France doesn't lose the industrial areas around Lille and has a narrow front to work with. They try to push through Lorraine but by early 1915 they realize they need a Plan B. I think the likeliest Plan B is the IOTL plan to send forces to the Balkans to help the Serbs, but at least five months earlier and on a bigger scale, where they might be effective.

5. Germany keeps at least Taganikya and Sudwest Afrika, but with a neutral Japan the Far East gets interesting with the German cruiser squadron lose, and no Japanese or Australian forces to counter it. Russia might try to do something about Tsingtao but that would draw forces from the west and nullify much of the benefit they get by Turkey remaining neutral.

If the British can come up with some sort of casus belli to declare war on Germany in 1915 or early 1916 the war gets back on its OTL track and the Central Powers in fact are screwed by not having seized that strategic territory in Belgium and northern France. Otherwise the British are able to arrange for a peace in early 1916 that allows the Central Powers to make their point over Serbia and get a puppet Polish state, but not much else and Germany probably has to give up a couple of its colonies. In that case the war is a bigger, bloodier iteration of the various nineteenth century wars, but not World War I. This scenarios is almost closer to a "no war" scenario than the OTL World War I in terms of butterflies.
 
If the German leadership has the good sense to "go east" in 1914, then it will also, in all likelihood, have the sense to exploit the battlefield defeat of the cream of the Russian forces with generous peace offers to Russia. Likewise, it will respond to the defeat of the attempted French invasion in a similar way. This, in turn, will maximize chances of ending the war before elite opinion in the British Empire shifts from "isn't it horrible what the Serbs did to Franz Ferdinand" and "a Russia with a broken nose will mean less trouble for us in the Near East and India" to "the Germans are getting too powerful."

To put things another way, making this work requires a mentality on the part of the German leadership that is so different from that of our time line as to require an exogenous intervention so fantastic as to make a young Harry Turtledove blush like a candied beet.;)
 
My short answer:

1. For various reasons discussed on the other thread, I'm persuaded that Britain stays neutral at least until 1915, while pretty much financing the French and Russian efforts. On the Western Front, the British army really was not much of a factor until 1916 and the blockade took awhile to get going, though no blockade will increasingly be a factor. But there are big diplomatic butterflies, the USA is not as tilted towards the Entente, Japan stays neutral and so likely do both Italy and Turkey.

2. Russia is not as screwed as you think because they benefit from more British and French assistance, plus there was alot of slack in their war effort that could be drawn on if they are the main theater, and if Turkey remains neutral much of the Caucasus army is available to plug gaps in their frontlines. Plus butterflies could lead to a better operational management of their armies.

3. More German forces on the Eastern Front helps Austria-Hungary, even better if Italy stays neutral. At a minimum they don't lose Prmyzl.

4. France doesn't lose the industrial areas around Lille and has a narrow front to work with. They try to push through Lorraine but by early 1915 they realize they need a Plan B. I think the likeliest Plan B is the IOTL plan to send forces to the Balkans to help the Serbs, but at least five months earlier and on a bigger scale, where they might be effective.

5. Germany keeps at least Taganikya and Sudwest Afrika, but with a neutral Japan the Far East gets interesting with the German cruiser squadron lose, and no Japanese or Australian forces to counter it. Russia might try to do something about Tsingtao but that would draw forces from the west and nullify much of the benefit they get by Turkey remaining neutral.

If the British can come up with some sort of casus belli to declare war on Germany in 1915 or early 1916 the war gets back on its OTL track and the Central Powers in fact are screwed by not having seized that strategic territory in Belgium and northern France. Otherwise the British are able to arrange for a peace in early 1916 that allows the Central Powers to make their point over Serbia and get a puppet Polish state, but not much else and Germany probably has to give up a couple of its colonies. In that case the war is a bigger, bloodier iteration of the various nineteenth century wars, but not World War I. This scenarios is almost closer to a "no war" scenario than the OTL World War I in terms of butterflies.

(1) I can certainly find enough support to agree with you and not feel I am flying with the bats. One must factor in the situation in Ireland and a likely election in 1915 before one commits to a belligerent Britain. Because I am not convinced this results in a slam dunk victory the pressure for Britain to intervene is quite wonky, my better bet would be some blow up in the Dardanelles, Greece or elsewhere to draw in a classic British effort on the fringes. With no blockade the CPs are in far better shape to prepare for total war and sustain it, I would guess they can be ready for a belligerent Britain by 1916 and be far less hurt by a later blockade, being able to outlast it really.

(2) And again I would tend to agree. Russia is actually rather impossible to defeat, we might see near as much territory loss we call B-L occurring by 1916 or 1917, and we likely see a fall of Nicholas, but Russia will survive. Once Poland, the Baltics, Finland and Ukraine are peeled away Germany and A-H have too little ability to swallow more. But I am doubtful it gets that far, Russia can effect a strong defense and stagnate the East, Germany must deal with France and A-H is entangled in Serbia, as mighty as Germany is she cannot in fact conquer the world.

(3) This should be quite the A-H wank really. Poland gets on a path to independence and Italy should be hovering neutral, likely never to join the war.

(4) France is in far better shape to sustain her own war effort, less dependent upon the British or Americans, they will bleed white but once they go on the defensive France is a hard nut to crack. My bet is Britain brokers a peace before Germany can mount the offensive needed to break France.

(5) As long as Britain is non-belligerent I would assume Germany retains her colonies, any lost are returned, maybe some other dribs and dabs change hands, but Britain will want no real alterations in the rest of the world. Germany should retain Tsingtao and might find Japan wanting to align against Russia and not as faithful to Britain. Asia may look rather different.

I would disagree that not seizing Belgium hurts Germany, even not holding Northern France is not that serious, OTL her allies made up the difference, here she does it herself, I will chalk it up as a zero. If we see no brokered peace in 1915, the strain of war should be enough by end of 1916 to see peace looming popular. I have no doubts that Russia is still screwed, France is no longer a true great power and Germany emerges as the peer player, A-H survives as the continental number two, the British are far less the first among equals yet far from as broke or weakened as OTL. The USA is not poised to become a super power, the world will be bipolar for a long time, Britain and Germany, two not actually super powers and more oddly equal, a precarious but better balance of power.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I would note that even if Britain is inclined to declare war on Germany, motivated by a sense of it being too powerful, and too much of a global commercial competitor that needs to be cut down to size, Britain does not have to fight Germany as hard as she did in OTL. Britain can blockade Germany and seize German colonies for a relative pittance without even engaging a ground force in Europe. Indeed, how attractive is it to Britain to send a BEF and keep committing it to the attack just to get Alsace-Lorraine and Rhineland for the French.

If among the Entente, it is the Russians who are getting all crumbly first, might the BEF actually deploy forces through the Black Sea, White Sea or best yet, the Baltic, to help the Russians hold on.

Overall, I tend to think that it won't even go to those extremes. Rather, the CP win a clear but limited victory in Europe, on "points" so to speak, within a year. Crushing Serbia in 1914, Austria and Bulgaria are probably in decent shape to feel they can "peace out" victoriously. The Germans can take or leave some border adjustments in Poland and Lithuania, but probably are not going to try to march to Moscow or St. Pete or destroy Russia as a great power. Enough beatings will convince Russia that it put up a valiant but doomed fight for Serbia and get them in a state to peace out. A few more beatings could convince Russia to swallow some small territorial losses for the sake of peace. The Germans probably don't feel like they need a Generalplan Ost or Brest-Litovsk style peace, and can be satisfied at demonstrating their military superiority, and their superior ability to protect their alliance partners. Ransom'ing small amounts of French or Russian territory might be an option for them too.
 
Top