WI Germany had won WW1 and how could they have done so.

You're kinda pessimistic. Isn't there a way to win WW1 for Germany? I think WW1 was winnable (is that a real word XD). It was a hell of a lot more winnable than WW2 anyway.

I would consider that the Great War was a gamble for Germany. The General Staff and Berlin were looking at some pretty big numbers in regards to French and Russian armies in the near future. At the same time the Austrians were worried about the Italians slowly regrouping from their campaign in Libya. The whole thing is a preemptive war that went quickly astray.

The Germans lost the war at the Battle of the Marne and with the onset of trench warfare. The Moltke Plan was unworkable by the German Army as it existed at the time. There are serious flaws within the German government and army that handicapped the opening campaigns.
 
The Franco-German border was heavily fortified prior to World War I; that's why Germany went to so much trouble to bypass the area in the first place. The French tried offensives into Alsace-Lorraine in the early part of the war in OTL and was soundly defeated; I'd assume that without the planned attack through Belgium to relieve French pressure on the A-L front and take up the bulk of German manpower the A-L forts will be even more strongly held than OTL so the outcome is not likely to change.

Also, with no German attack on Belgium British aid on the Western Front will probably at least be delayed and/or weakened compared to OTL, particularly if Germany is taking a defensive posture vs. France. IMO, when Britain enters the war they would be much more inclined to use their army in a Gallipoli-like independent campaign than to commit it to the Western Front under this scenario.

Removing the attack on Belgium will also make it much easier for Germany to get supplies of nitrates from abroad, as they will not have alienated a large number of previously neutral powers. This is doubly so if British entry into the war is delayed, thus giving Germany much easier access to the world market due to no blockade.

If the bulk of German manpower is focused on Russia the Russia pursuing the same strategy as OTL would be very unwise; the German offensive could quite likely end up cutting off the Russian forces moving against Austria-Hungary and gaining a victory even greater than they managed at Tannenberg. The salient in the Russo-German border formed by Poland is just begging for a major offensive to create a huge encirclement of Russian forces, something of which the Russian general staff is well aware. IIRC Russian plans in the event of facing a joint offensive from the German and Austro-Hungarian armies were to pull back from the Poland in order to have a shorter and more defensible frontline.

Also, logistics probably will not be as much of a problem in World War I as they were for the Nazis; the nature of the war makes rapid advances unlikely and requires solid railroad supply lines to be established to support any offensives. Furthermore, the WWI Germans would not ignore logistics as Hitler was wont to do, nor would there be as much deliberate antagonisation of the local populace.



World War I ≠ World War II

If Britain tries to fight on from French territory then Germany will demand that the French government remove them or be considered in violation of the cease fire. If the British refuse to leave then France will be forced to either resume the war with Germany or declare the British an invading army and respond appropriately (i.e. to expel the British by force).

Further, the odds of any "Free French" showing up are extremely low; the Third Republic would still be in place rather than the much less legitimate Vichy regime established in World War II, and years of trench warfare would leave the French soldiers in the field much more exhausted of war and inclined to go home and rebuild than six weeks of blitzkrieg.

I won't even mention the assumption that the US would still enter the war in 1917 despite a completely different progression of the war when compared to OTL. There's no "Rape of Belgium" to turn opinion in the US against Germany as occured in OTL, and without most of the neutrals already alienated Germany will be much less inclined to launch Unrestricted Submarine Warfare when Britain enters the war. IMO, the US is likely to stay neutral for the course of the war and make a ridiculous amount of money selling whatever it can to both sides.

Of course the Franco-German frontier was heavily fortified on the French side of the border since extensive German entrenchments were not begun until 1916. The pre-existing German fortifications were no better than the French ones that the Germans were able to overrun because of superior numbers. Nothing in Germany equalled Verdun.

If Germany followed a Russia First policy, then the disposition of forces would need to be the reverse of OTL. Instead of some 60% of the army on the western front it would be in the east. Russia’s response would not be to launch a large-scale pincer movement to try and envelop the smaller German forces. Rather it would resemble the Franco-British efforts on the western front in OTL. Frontal attacks followed by retreat if and when defeated, then entrenchment to meet the expected counter-attack. There is no reason to suppose the results would be any different to those of the historic western front except there would be more room to try and outflank each other.

Opportunities to attack the Austrians would still present themselves and could still be undertaken although the great sieges against the fortified towns that took place in OTL would not occur. Indeed, Austrian strategic considerations may change if Germany adopts a Russia First plan and they may launch ill advised attacks against the Russians.

If this strategy was adopted, there would be far fewer German troops on the western front especially in those areas the French attacked in Alsace-Lorraine, that were partly successful anyway. Even if the French initial attacks failed, they could fall back and regroup just as did historically and attack again but in this scenario without any worry about a German counter-attack because of a lack of reserves. Eventually and in a relatively short period of time, the German defences would crack and the way into the heartland would lie wide open.

There would be no need for British involvement if this strategy was used. However, the increasing consensus on this site and in this thread is that somehow the British would simply ignore their allies and treaty obligations if Germany did not invade Belgium. This is patently false since the reason Britain joined the Entente in the first place had nothing whatever to do with preserving Belgian neutrality and everything to do with preventing Germany from dominating the continent. Why would anyone consider that the UK would align itself against its traditional ally in concert with its traditional enemies just to help Belgium? Germany’s invasion of Belgium was a handy propaganda coup for the allies but it did not of itself move Britain to declare war.
 
Alsace-Lorraine was not very heavily garrissoned in OTL; the original Schlieffen plan was to draw the French forces into A-L with a weak defense so that the movement through Belgium would envelop the French Army. Remember, the bulk of the German Army on the Western Front in 1914 was devoted to the attack through Belgium, not holding Alsace-Lorraine.

If Germany plans to hold a semi-static defensive line rather than conduct a fighting withdrawal while their main force crashes into the French rear then their forces in Alsace-Lorraine will be stronger than they were in OTL, not weaker. Considering that the OTL forces were successful enough in blunting French offensives for Moltke to attempt a counter-attack rather than the original strategy of a fighting withdrawal I imagine a stronger defense will hardly lead to worse results. The OTL A-L garrison had no trouble blunting the French attacks on Sarrebourg and Mülhausen, and with a stronger defensive focus and more troops the battles will likely go even better for Germany.

Also, the Alsace-Lorraine front is going to be much narrower than the OTL Western Front, which will make it even harder from France to launch an effective offensive as it will be hard to bring any material advantages to bear on such a narrow front, while Germany will have an easier time shifting forces to meet any French attacks.
 
The attack into Alsace-Lorraine saw two French armies attack two entrenched German armies. Despite this the French did succeed in taking Mulhouse but were forced to withdraw when the rest of the front retreated.

If Germany adopted a Russia First strategy, there would be precious little, if any, more troops available than the two German armies in Alsace-Lorraine. On the other hand the French had their whole force available with no need to cover any German attack through Belgium. When the French took Mulhouse they would not need to withdraw because reinforcements would be heading to the front to hold their flank. Faced with continuing attacks the Germans could not hold for any length of time.

The problem for the Germans is, if they had more soldiers than this on the western front then they would not have enough on the eastern front to be sure of defeating the Russian Steamroller. They also could not be sure that the two armies on the western front would be enough to hold the French. While my opinion is that they could not, the High Command had to be sure they could hold or Germany would be defeated in a matter of weeks. This is the core premise behind my opinion that a Russia First strategy would spell doom for Germany.

Just like the attack through Belgium was modified and extra troops sent to the east and so on, this plan would need to be modified and so would not succeed on any front.
 
Alright MarkA ... I'll try to explain this one more time.

Under the Schlieffen/Moltke plan the forces in Alsace-Lorraine were only supposed to hold out for a few weeks until the attack through Belgium enveloped the bulk of the French Army and destroyed it. As such, the border was defended by a relatively small force, which still managed to do a fairly good job at stopping the initial French offensive.

If Germany pursues a Russia-first strategy, they will deploy a larger percentage of their forces into Alsace-Lorraine than OTL, as they will not be counting on the attack through Belgium to take pressure off of that front. While the overall deployment to the Western Front will be much smaller than OTL, the forces in Alsace-Lorraine will be larger than they were OTL because there will be no Belgian front to take up the bulk of the forces on the Western Front. The German forces will also be more strongly dug in than OTL, as the plan will be to hold the frontline rather than a fighting withdrawal and eventual counterattack. When an offensive already did not work historically it seems logical to posit that said offensive will fail when the defender is has more troops and is more strongly fortified in their position.
 
I will try to explain it one more time as well.

There will not be more German troops in A-L if Germany adopts a Russia First policy but rather less, or at the best the same, as in OTL.

Germany could not possibly hope to defeat the Russians if the former had any less than the same number of soldiers they committed in OTL to the western front. Indeed, the historic plan was to defeat the French and then send the whole German army east. This would include not only the troops in A-L and the divisions used to sweep through Belgium but also the soldiers already at the eastern front and the newly arrived conscript reinforcements. How would the German High Command be convinced they could defeat the Russians with fewer troops than they thought they needed in OTL?

The attack did partially succeed although the two opposing forces were roughly equal (although I think the Germans may have been larger) and was not pressed home because of the need to have French forces available to counter the German thrust through Belgium. No thrust through Belgium means no need to hold back any of the French army from the A-L front. It is not likely the German forces, entrenched or not, would be able to hold against wave after wave of the entire French army!
 
I will try to explain it one more time as well.

There will not be more German troops in A-L if Germany adopts a Russia First policy but rather less, or at the best the same, as in OTL.

Germany could not possibly hope to defeat the Russians if the former had any less than the same number of soldiers they committed in OTL to the western front. Indeed, the historic plan was to defeat the French and then send the whole German army east. This would include not only the troops in A-L and the divisions used to sweep through Belgium but also the soldiers already at the eastern front and the newly arrived conscript reinforcements. How would the German High Command be convinced they could defeat the Russians with fewer troops than they thought they needed in OTL?

The attack did partially succeed although the two opposing forces were roughly equal (although I think the Germans may have been larger) and was not pressed home because of the need to have French forces available to counter the German thrust through Belgium. No thrust through Belgium means no need to hold back any of the French army from the A-L front. It is not likely the German forces, entrenched or not, would be able to hold against wave after wave of the entire French army!

Well, looks like we both understand where the other is coming from; I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
 
The German position in France was probably the key reason why Germany could fight greater powers for 4 years and do so well. To go east instead would leave an undiminished France in Germany's rear, still need lots of divisions to hold them and have nowhere to yeild ground in the event of a reverse. Going west in 1914 was the best option for Germany, without a doubt.

With this in mind winning WW1 is all about percentages, making them better for Germany. Winning the race to the sea would drop Britain's contribution, and doing many of the things Hoffman suggests in his book 'War of Lost Opportunities'; capturing Riga in 1916, Italy instead of Verdun among others.
 
Top