WI: Reverse Schlieffen Plan

In WWI, under the Schlieffen plan, Germany chose to initially take a defensive position with Russia and attempt to push into France first. This push, of course, brought them through Belgium, brought the British into the war, and ultimately resulted in stalemated trench warfare that would last for years. Meanwhile, on the eastern front, fighting proved to be more open and dynamic, with the Russians eventually collapsing on their own internal strife.
What would happen if Germany, instead, reversed this plan? What would happen if they simply held their own border with France and instead worked with the Austro-Hungarians to launch an offensive against the Russians first? Would they be able to keep Britain out of the war? Would they be able to prevent the Italians from siding with the Entente? Would France attempt their own offensive into Germany?
 
... Would they be able to keep Britain out of the war?

Probably not. The Brit politicians who led them into the war had a larger agenda than just Belgiums neutrality.

Would they be able to prevent the Italians from siding with the Entente?

Difficult to guess. Italian politics were complex and there were multiple groups/agendas. The decision to join the Entente was in part driven by nationalists who wanted to join bits of the Austrian Empire into Italy.

Would France attempt their own offensive into Germany?

France had already started a offensive into Germany as soon as its mobilization fielded the soldiers. Their war plan #17 revolved around it. Their overriding goal was to reclaim Alsace-Lorraine. No way they are going to go to war with Germany and not attack across the border.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
...
What would happen if Germany, instead, reversed this plan? What would happen if they simply held their own border with France and instead worked with the Austro-Hungarians to launch an offensive against the Russians first?
Well, this is (almost ?) a/the classic AH-trope : the "East First"-version of WW 1.

... and though often and heavily discussed within the Alternate History community (not only on this site), there are not so many (at least known to me) attempts to actually write such an ATL.

Perhaps the 'most known' is "Grey Tide" with it follow ups.
And this is also rather 'short' on the practical side, as how the germans actual conduct their 'alternate' eastern campaign.

Most of the time the discussions 'work' with the last fully and truly by the german general staff prepared plan for such a campaign : the "Aufmarsch Ost II" for the mobilization period of 1912/1913, planned and compiled in 1911.
For the mobilization period of 1913/1914 there was only a 'study' (much abbreviated 'plan')for such an eastern campaign, that - as far as can be said today - didn't differed much from the 1912/1913 plan. ... especially regarding strategic-operational 'ideas' as the gigantic battle-of-Leuctra or maybe better for a prussian-german reader ;-) battle-of-Leuthen idea the Schlieffen-plan actuall was.

( The sooo often named battle-of-Cannae trope is only the result of generations of uneducated copy-n-paste. It was - if at all - only an operational sub-plan of what Moltke made out of Schlieffen regarding the fight in Lorrain.)

However. This plan made-up by Moltke the Minor in 1911 was uninspired, simple-stupid (or simply stupid) and in now-way up to the task. In essence it was a front against front shoving of forces up to the russian fortress line and then ... sry but ... no idea at all.
... as Moltke the Minor also had IOTL in 1914 no idea at all, what to do against the russians, than defend as envisaged and planned by Schlieffen and the longstanting army-inspector of Eastern Prussia who - as inspector of pioneers and fortresses forces - planned andconceived the fieldfortications in eastern prussia present in 1914 as well as induced the operational training for this case : Colmar v.d.Goltz.


But for your further questions :
Would they be able to keep Britain out of the war?
Consensus (more or less) on this board is :
not for the whole time of war.
At some point GB would - still - join the frail against the germans, rather earlier than later. ... though (also still) noone ever provided me a reasonable, sensible, possible as well as working and probably other casus belli to draw Britain in than the belgian violation (beside some hand-waving and nebulous 'they/press-will-fetch/invent-some').
Would they be able to prevent the Italians from siding with the Entente?
As long as GB also stayes out ... IMO of course.
After the first slaughter/bleeding-white of the french running against german defences in Lorrain GB might even need some ... effort keeping the italians fom joining for some mussoliniesque french-bashing. But as soon as Britain enters against the CP ... Don't see why the italian politicians wouldn't be as stupid as they were in 1915 IOTL.
Would France attempt their own offensive into Germany?
YES !!!
They were obliged to do so on the terms of their alliance with Russia to attack at the 14th day of mobilization at last, parallel to the russians.
They were obliged to do so on their own revanchism as well.

IOTL in the nigth from 1st to 2nd August the french prime minister Viviani as well as the french president Poincaré told the russian ambassador Isvolsky being informed on the german 'DoW', that France would OFC fulfill its obligations, but that due to political domestical issues they would rather wait for their DoW against Germany until the french mobilization has been finished at about the 12th August. Also, that they would render it much more advantageous (for again domestistic but as well international reasons) if the germans would do the "first step" and start the attacking ... against France. ... A 'favor' IOTL the germans did.
 
Last edited:
The reference to the battle o Canae comes from the influence of Schlieffen's book on the battle, which had a profound influence on generations of German Officers.
As a reference for German Military thinking, Canae didn't just represent double envelopment, but the annihilation of an enemy's large force through manoeuvre.
It stuck as a military history cliche mostly because the victory at Canae didn't lead to a Cartahginian victory in the war, while the victory at Leuctra did lead to a period of Teban domination.
Leuctra is also different because Teban effort was concentrated on the stronger element of the opposing force, and amounts to a land equivalent of "crossing the T" of a enemy linear force. The Schlieffen plan would overcome the weaker wing of the French force and emvelop it. A WW1 Leuctra would have been a mased German attack against the French 1st and 2nd Army, followed by a general assault on the disorganized French front.
 
Last edited:
This 'east first' alternative is one I've never adequately gamed out. Tried to a couple times, but never satisfactorily. Maybe I'll have the opportunity in the next year or two. It does seem to me the question has answers at two levels. First in the situation of the first 6-10 months. Second in the longer run, at the grand strategic level, where economics, national will, ect.. are important.
 
Top