WI- No Schlieffen Plan?

[Jimbrock]

Was watching a program on TV, and got me wondering, if Britain was deprived of a casus belli in the begining of WWI due to no invasion of Belgium, would they still have joined in the war? Lets assume that there is no Schlieffen Plan as we know it, instead a different plan is devised that respects the Belgian neutrality and invades through Alsace and Lorraine. With handwavium we can also assume that ATL WWI starts in a similar period to ours (1910s) and that the casus belli does not create major changes in the war.

So Germany and Austria (we can either include or ignore Italy, depending on the casus belli) are at war with France and Russia. Does the limit to attacking from German territory hamper the efficiency of the German attack and can they still capture Paris in a relatively short time? Does Britain still enter the war? Could the whole outcome of the Great War be changed?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

There is simply no way that the Germans would attack across Alsace-Lorraine. It was suicide as the French demonstrated and the German General Staff knew that. Which is why they decided to move through Belgium. Otherwise they would have turned East first. However, this is also fraught with peril, as the pre-war Russian army was designed to fight in exactly this situation. Plus with the fortifications at the most important areas, the CPs are going to have a hard time breaking through. It was only possible OTL because the Russians attacked first and spent their offensive strength and well trained troops attacking against doctrine.

 

[usertron2020]

The Alps? Easy! We train an army of mountain climbers!

There is simply no way that the Germans would attack across Alsace-Lorraine. It was suicide as the French demonstrated and the German General Staff knew that.

Absolutely. War in Alsace-Lorraine was exactly what the French were preparing for since 1871. The only thing that would be worse is a "March thru Switzerland" plan.

 

[jaybird]

If the Italians can be relied upon to draw French strength away from the border, maybe?

 

[Mirza Khan]

What about a better Schlieffen plan? IIRC, the SP made unrealistic assumptions about the ground troops could cover and the ease of driving through France all the way to Paris.

 

[usertron2020]

What about a better Schlieffen plan? IIRC, the SP made unrealistic assumptions about the ground troops could cover and the ease of driving through France all the way to Paris.

Wasn't it also a matter of diversion of forces to other sites of conflict that Schlieffen never envisioned? "Keep the right strong!"

 

[rast]

The notion that if Germany had avoided an advance via Belgium, Britain would not have entered the war ignores the fact that some powerful men in Britain were working very hard to steer the country into a war in order to avoid 'German domination of the continent'.
Grey (in conjunction with Asquith and Haldane) had already bound Britain to the Entente (completely by-passing the opinion of the majority of the cabinet) before the war was even looming.
If Germany really had avoided entering Belgium, some other reason would undoubtedly have been 'found' (a kind of early Lusitania or Dogger Bank incident). Britain might have joined a little later, but joined she would have.

Provided our ample hindsight, it is easy to construct a course of events where Germany stays on the defensive in the west. But this ignores how the contemporaries in 1914 viewed their chances. All sides, all nations were going on the offensive, as the offensive was considered 'state of the art' for deciding and winning a war.
Germany, sandwiched between France and Russia, could go east or west. But the east was limitless and the Russians were prepared to fall back on the interior should the Germans show up in force. France, although a big country, was rather more limited, which would force the French Army to accept battle (even ignoring the fact that France was going to attack Germany anyway). Hence the German decision to go west.

 

[Douglas]

But this ignores how the contemporaries in 1914 viewed their chances. All sides, all nations were going on the offensive, as the offensive was considered 'state of the art' for deciding and winning a war.

This isn't true. The cult of the offensive was limited to France. Austria, Germany, and Russia, for instance, were very content to remain on the defensive early on in major theaters.

Prittwitz and later Hindenburg were conducting a defensive operation in Prussia until they got lucky and saw an opening.

The initial Russian plan was to abandon Poland and fall back to a more defensible line. It was only when they realized that no German offensive was forthcoming that their "default" forays into Prussia began.

The Austro-Hungarian army beyond the Carpathians remained on the defensive.

 

[Eurofed]

The notion that if Germany had avoided an advance via Belgium, Britain would not have entered the war ignores the fact that some powerful men in Britain were working very hard to steer the country into a war in order to avoid 'German domination of the continent'.
Grey (in conjunction with Asquith and Haldane) had already bound Britain to the Entente (completely by-passing the opinion of the majority of the cabinet) before the war was even looming.
If Germany really had avoided entering Belgium, some other reason would undoubtedly have been 'found' (a kind of early Lusitania or Dogger Bank incident). Britain might have joined a little later, but joined she would have.

Of course, this argument typically ignores the point that those men, while powerful, were not dictators or political gods, and had to answer to political opinion, the press, the Commons, and the majority of the Cabinet, which may well not buy their anti-German arguments nor fall to their thinly fabricated casus belli nor feel bound to alliance committments done behind their back. In a few months, trench warfare shall become notorious in all its horror, and Home Rule shall make the Ulster explode. Both very good reasons for the British public refusing to buy the concoctions of the anti-German lobby. The British committment to the Entente was still quite fresh, and without Belgium, the UK lacked any compelling reason to fight.

 

[Douglas]

The British committment to the Entente was still quite fresh, and without Belgium, the UK lacked any compelling reason to fight.

And without Belgium, Germany lacked any compelling reason to declare war on France.

 

[Eurofed]

And without Belgium, Germany lacked any compelling reason to declare war on France.

True, but this only means that France shall declare war on Germany first, when Germany declares war on Russia because Russia declared war on Austria. France has a true alliance committments and has been dying for a chance to get that Alsace-Lorraine back.

 

[rast]

Douglas: This isn't true. The cult of the offensive was limited to France. Austria, Germany, and Russia, for instance, were very content to remain on the defensive early on in major theaters.

Germany: Major offensive into France through Belgium, minor offensive against French positions in Lorraine. Defensive action in East Prussia with the aim of gutting at least one Russian army by limited offensive.

France: Major offensive into Southern Belgium, minor distracting actions into Lorraine and Alsace.

Austria: Offensive against Serbia and offensive into Russia.

Russia: Minor offensive against East Prussia, major offensive against Austria-Hungary.

 

[Jimbrock]

So theres a divided opinion. I had suspected as Eurofed explained that the British people (not the leaders and strategists, as the people rule ultimately) would not see any point in fighting with no 'Brave Little Belgium' especially if the war is over in a short time. If the Germans could not have attacked along the A-L border, could an East First policy work?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

And without Belgium, Germany lacked any compelling reason to declare war on France.

WHAT?

Besides which, didn't France DoW Germany.

IIRC, the sequence is something on the close order of:
AH DoWs Serbia
Russian DoWs AH (because of alliance with Serbia)
Germany DoWs Russia (alliance with AH)
France DoWs Germany (alliance with Russia)

What does Belgium have to do with it?

 

[Kalan]

WHAT?

Besides which, didn't France DoW Germany.

No, Germany declared war on France (because France violated Belgian and Dutch Neutrality and shelled various German towns - at least according to the Germans). According to the Schlieffen Plan Germany had to take out France before Russia had completed her mobilisation, therefore Germany had to declare war on France to attack in time.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Douglas: This isn't true. The cult of the offensive was limited to France. Austria, Germany, and Russia, for instance, were very content to remain on the defensive early on in major theaters.

Germany: Major offensive into France through Belgium, minor offensive against French positions in Lorraine. Defensive action in East Prussia with the aim of gutting at least one Russian army by limited offensive.

France: Major offensive into Southern Belgium, minor distracting actions into Lorraine and Alsace.

Austria: Offensive against Serbia and offensive into Russia.

Russia: Minor offensive against East Prussia, major offensive against Austria-Hungary.

Rast,

I wouldn't call a massive offensive that took over 100k casualties a minor distracting actions (battle of the frontiers)

Russia's offensive against east prussia wasn't minor either involving 200k men... it was only limited in scope by the terrain which reduced possible employments and how many men can you mobilize in only 2 weeks?

as to your other point about Britain comming into the war regardless, I wholeheartedly agree

Britain and Germany had been engaged in a cold war since the 1860's that had grown hotter and hotter since the Kaiser decided to build his own battlefleet. There was no way the English where going to stand by and let the Germans curbstomp the French and the Russians because it would be a severe threat to the empire's hedgemoney

 

[Douglas]

WHAT?

Besides which, didn't France DoW Germany.

IIRC, the sequence is something on the close order of:
AH DoWs Serbia
Russian DoWs AH (because of alliance with Serbia)
Germany DoWs Russia (alliance with AH)
France DoWs Germany (alliance with Russia)

What does Belgium have to do with it?

As Kalan stated, your sequence is incorrect in bold. Germany declared war on France when France refused to capitulate her sovereignty. German war plans had 6 of 7 or 7 of 8 (can't remember which) armies thrown at France at the outbreak of war. Most of these came through Belgium, and had been planned to go through Belgium since at latest 1905, with planning for an offensive in the West going back to 1890.

In other words, changing things so that Germany is content for some reason to remain on the defensive in the West while attacking in the East requires a PoD nearly a quarter of a century before the outbreak of WW1.

 

[Douglas]

France: Major offensive into Southern Belgium, minor distracting actions into Lorraine and Alsace.

Interesting ATL there, where the French violate Belgian neutrality at the outbreak of war instead of striking into Germany at the Frontiers.

[Austro-Hungarian] offensive into Russia.p

Two armies of four went on the offensive.

[Russian] major offensive against Austria-Hungary.

A counteroffensive to relieve pressure on the other wing. Not a planned initial offensive.

The idea that every country was planning on offensives on every front with everything they had is silly.

 

[BlairWitch749]

As Kalan stated, your sequence is incorrect in bold. Germany declared war on France when France refused to capitulate her sovereignty. German war plans had 6 of 7 or 7 of 8 (can't remember which) armies thrown at France at the outbreak of war. Most of these came through Belgium, and had been planned to go through Belgium since at latest 1905, with planning for an offensive in the West going back to 1890.

In other words, changing things so that Germany is content for some reason to remain on the defensive in the West while attacking in the East requires a PoD nearly a quarter of a century before the outbreak of WW1.

Not necessarily. You just need an incident that changes German thinking in their strategic priorities... maybe they see the massive expansion of the Russian railroads or a more progressive cheif of staff comes in with an eastern focus. Or perhaps the Germans could interpret the Russians getting destroyed by the Japanese as a sign of weakness and change their strategy to slaughter them first. France was not going to violate belgium's neutrality strait up and an attack across the frontier was proven to be an extremely bad idea without them even getting near the metz fortresses which would have served just as well if not better than verdun. The Germans could have employed an economy of force mission in the west and sent the mass and striking power of their armies east

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

And without Belgium, Germany lacked any compelling reason to declare war on France.

As Kalan stated, your sequence is incorrect in bold. Germany declared war on France when France refused to capitulate her sovereignty. German war plans had 6 of 7 or 7 of 8 (can't remember which) armies thrown at France at the outbreak of war. Most of these came through Belgium, and had been planned to go through Belgium since at latest 1905, with planning for an offensive in the West going back to 1890.

In other words, changing things so that Germany is content for some reason to remain on the defensive in the West while attacking in the East requires a PoD nearly a quarter of a century before the outbreak of WW1.

OK, I can see that Germany beat France to the punch. My recollection there is obviously faulty.

And certainly I can see that Germany, if it wished to attack France needs to go through Belgium.

But your first quote still makes no sense to me. It wasn't because of Belgium that Germany went to war with France, which is what that line states, no?