WI: World war 1 - Germany abandoned Schlieffen Plan in last minutes, AND some other butterflies

Thomas1195

Banned
How would the World War 1 look like if:
1. In early August 1914, Britain somehow put enough pressure to force Germany to abandon the Schlieffen Plan. But Briyish war entry would be delayed for at least several months.

2. Italy still decline to join CPs like OTL.

3. Britain still lay the Dover barrage.

4. No Japan in CPs like OTL.
 
In the absence of the Schlieffen Plan, the military forces of the German Empire would shift their main effort from the campaign against France to the campaign against Russia. This would have led to an earlier defeat of the Russian forces invading both Germany and Austria-Hungary, followed by a counterattack into Russian territory. Thus, much of what the Germany of our time line captured in the summer of 1915 (Congress Poland, Lithuania, White Russia, and Courland) would have been taken in the summer and fall of 1914.

In the absence of a hostile British Empire, the naval forces of the German Empire would have been able to shift their main effort to the Baltic. This would have led to the defeat of the Russian Baltic Fleet and the conversion of the Baltic into a German "lake." This, in turn, would have made possible German landings in various places along the Baltic littoral, particularly Finland and the Baltic Islands.

If the events of 1914 failed to convince the Russian Empire to sue for peace, then a second series of offensive actions in the spring of 1915 would have achieved that goal. In particular, we would have seen a powerful German army, supplied largely by sea and cooperating with smaller forces landed at places like Reval and Narva, marching through Livonia and Estonia in the direction of St. Petersburg.

In the West, the absence of a German invasion of France would have denied both French civil society and the French Army the grave threat that, in our time line, caused those entities to overcome the internal problems that had plagued them in the pre-war period. Worse still, the costly attempts to by French forces to break through the defenses of western Germany would have led to indiscipline in the ranks and the sort of high-level campaigns of recrimination for which both the generals and the politicians of the times were famous. Thus, if the French managed to stay in the war until the end of 1914, they would have probably sued for peace sometime in the spring or summer of 1915.

Within the United Kingdom, there would have been a "war party" arguing that, should Germany defeat Russia and France, Germany would dominate the Continent. At the same time, the newspapers would have been full of tales of the atrocities inflicted by Cossacks on the civilians of East Prussia. (The tale of the young woman at the telephone exchange, who was shot by the Russians for the crime of reporting Russian troop movements to German forces, would have resonated deeply with the British public.) Thus, it would have been very hard for British politicians to countenance a "war for the sake of Russia."

In the end, the best that the British government could hope for was an early end to the hostilities, and thus a limit to German conquests in the east. Thus, the British Empire ended up playing the role that the United States had played in the Russo-Japanese War. That is, just as the US wished to end the Russo-Japanese War before Japan acquired too much territory on the mainland of Asia, the British Empire wished to end the War of 1914 before the Germans could acquire too much territory from Russia.
 
In the absence of the Schlieffen Plan, the military forces of the German Empire would shift their main effort from the campaign against France to the campaign against Russia. This would have led to an earlier defeat of the Russian forces invading both Germany and Austria-Hungary, followed by a counterattack into Russian territory. Thus, much of what the Germany of our time line captured in the summer of 1915 (Congress Poland, Lithuania, White Russia, and Courland) would have been taken in the summer and fall of 1914.

In the absence of a hostile British Empire, the naval forces of the German Empire would have been able to shift their main effort to the Baltic. This would have led to the defeat of the Russian Baltic Fleet and the conversion of the Baltic into a German "lake." This, in turn, would have made possible German landings in various places along the Baltic littoral, particularly Finland and the Baltic Islands.

If the events of 1914 failed to convince the Russian Empire to sue for peace, then a second series of offensive actions in the spring of 1915 would have achieved that goal. In particular, we would have seen a powerful German army, supplied largely by sea and cooperating with smaller forces landed at places like Reval and Narva, marching through Livonia and Estonia in the direction of St. Petersburg.

In the West, the absence of a German invasion of France would have denied both French civil society and the French Army the grave threat that, in our time line, caused those entities to overcome the internal problems that had plagued them in the pre-war period. Worse still, the costly attempts to by French forces to break through the defenses of western Germany would have led to indiscipline in the ranks and the sort of high-level campaigns of recrimination for which both the generals and the politicians of the times were famous. Thus, if the French managed to stay in the war until the end of 1914, they would have probably sued for peace sometime in the spring or summer of 1915.

Within the United Kingdom, there would have been a "war party" arguing that, should Germany defeat Russia and France, Germany would dominate the Continent. At the same time, the newspapers would have been full of tales of the atrocities inflicted by Cossacks on the civilians of East Prussia. (The tale of the young woman at the telephone exchange, who was shot by the Russians for the crime of reporting Russian troop movements to German forces, would have resonated deeply with the British public.) Thus, it would have been very hard for British politicians to countenance a "war for the sake of Russia."

In the end, the best that the British government could hope for was an early end to the hostilities, and thus a limit to German conquests in the east. Thus, the British Empire ended up playing the role that the United States had played in the Russo-Japanese War. That is, just as the US wished to end the Russo-Japanese War before Japan acquired too much territory on the mainland of Asia, the British Empire wished to end the War of 1914 before the Germans could acquire too much territory from Russia.
That's quite similar to the background I developed for the EDC, though without Britain sitting out the war.
 
Well, first the British might have declared war on Germany anyway. They did it IOTL for balance of power reasons, the invasion of Belgium was just used to sell the war to the public. But without the invasion you would have had more resignations from the cabinet (there were two IOTL), the Coalition between the Liberals and the Tories would have had to have been formed earlier, and there would have been much less solidarity among the public for the war effort in both Britain and France, and much less good will in other countries (such as the USA) which might have affected things down the line.

The Baltic was a German lake IOTL. The Russian navy gave the Germans no problems at all. It was also too close to winter for the Germans to do much against the Russians. The Eastern Front may not have been affected much. And the Germans would not have had the coal and iron fields they took by going through Belgium.

Also Nikolai II had absolutely no intention of making a separate peace with Germany or any settlement except on his own terms, meaning as long as he is in power there is not much benefit to taking more Russian territory. The Germans themselves mostly realized this.

There would have been much more assistance to Russia from Britain and France. Again IOTL they were calling on the Russians to launch ill=advised offensives to take the pressure off of the Western Front. They would have had to so something to take the war to Germany, and the two realistic projects would have been to invade Belgium, or to take the Straights to make it easier to aid Russia. They could also have done something in the North Sea, including invading Denmark, but taking the Straights accomplishes the same thing and is a much better idea. You would probably see an invasion of the Straights that was actually not half-assed.

Incidentally, the idea that the 1914 invasion of Belgium has much to do with Schlieffen is something of a historical myth.

Germany would have been in a worse situation militarily, but gotten big advantages in propaganda, especially if the Entente powers take to invading neutral or third countries, and that might have more than made up for the military disadvantages.
 
Since this is a surprise. The Germans would have to after mobilizing on the western frontier, move maybe 4 corps at a time to the east. 1st army and Second Army. The rest 3-7 need to remain west to defeat the French attack.

If there is a period of British neutrality the German need to get going and import a reserve of strategic supplies of all kinds. The Germans in this TL are not going to control Briery and their own iron fields may be under fire.

Some compensation may be gained for French territories if the Austrian defeat in Galacia is mitigated by the extra German forces in the East.

Agree with Galba above that once the French are repulsed at Metz an invasion of the Straits (even if the Ottomans still neutral) is likely if the Turks end up closing them to merchant shipping as in OTL (September 27 1914).
 
This was done to the death. There were like 3 threads in 2016 alone, longer than dozen pages.
Russians had actual war plans, that instead of OTL offensive were of strategic defence, precisely for "Germany goes east" scenarios. They'll eventually retreat to Dvina/Pripyat line to conserve forces.
British still close channel off to German ships, which effectively is very similar to blockade of Germany.
Germans cannot defend the west if their main force is in the east. Warsaw for Metz is bad trade-off for Germans.
This would have led to an earlier defeat of the Russian forces invading both Germany and Austria-Hungary, followed by a counterattack into Russian territory.
(...)
At the same time, the newspapers would have been full of tales of the atrocities inflicted by Cossacks on the civilians of East Prussia.
Funny how newspapers write of countless Russian atrocities in Prussia, even though Germans just instantly push Russians aside :)
 

NoMommsen

Donor
... Incidentally, the idea that the 1914 invasion of Belgium has much to do with Schlieffen is something of a historical myth.
... like at least that part.

Russians had actual war plans, that instead of OTL offensive were of strategic defence, precisely for "Germany goes east" scenarios.
:eek:Active plans in 1914 ??
Never heard and esp, never read about them.

Source please.
 
Last edited:
This was done to the death. There were like 3 threads in 2016 alone, longer than dozen pages.
Russians had actual war plans, that instead of OTL offensive were of strategic defence, precisely for "Germany goes east" scenarios. They'll eventually retreat to Dvina/Pripyat line to conserve forces.
British still close channel off to German ships, which effectively is very similar to blockade of Germany.
Germans cannot defend the west if their main force is in the east. Warsaw for Metz is bad trade-off for Germans.

Funny how newspapers write of countless Russian atrocities in Prussia, even though Germans just instantly push Russians aside :)


I agree, but none of them really reached a consensus and irrc those that thought a east-first strategy more favorable for Germany were a slight majority. Germany focusing on the East would involve no more than 4 armies (only 3 could be quickly transported by rail, a fourth would have to march at least part of the way), leaving at least half of the German army to fend off French attacks. Considering, that the German-French border is rather short and the terrain heavily favours the defender I believe 4 German armies would have been able to hold out against 5 French armies.
Also I don't believe that closing the channel for German warships is the same as the otl blockade. Although, German shipping would be vulnerable to surface raiders, there is nothing stopping Germany from transporting goods on ships from neutral countries.
Again irrc, the Russian offensive plan did assume up to 25 German divisions heading east in combination with the fact that the French and the Russians had agreed to coordinated offensives I don't think it can be taken for granted that the Russians would simply go over to a defensive war plan. Additionally, while Poland was certainly not as economically valuable as the otl occupied part of France, it was still one of the most industrialized regions in the Russian Empire and the Germans heading east would at the very least soften the blow Austria-Hungary suffers in the initital stage of WW1.
 
Last edited:
This was done to the death. There were like 3 threads in 2016 alone, longer than dozen pages.

Yes, I started one that got 1200 posts! Highly informative but every aspect covered in exhaustive detail and boiling down to opinions of the posters.

Russians had actual war plans, that instead of OTL offensive were of strategic defence, precisely for "Germany goes east" scenarios. They'll eventually retreat to Dvina/Pripyat line to conserve forces.

I haven't heard of any Russian war plans for the defensive, of France, Russia, Britain, Germany and AH, only AH had more than one mobilisation plan available in 1914, ALL the others had single mobilisation/deployment plans.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
1. In early August 1914, Britain somehow put enough pressure to force Germany to abandon the Schlieffen Plan. But Briyish war entry would be delayed for at least several months.
Quite the opposite.
IOTL the (well, on this board debated) offer of the possibility of neutrality by Britain and France caused IOTL Wilhelm II. to actually order Moltke and Falkenhayn to stop the western deployment and to order an eastern deployment.
(However, when this "offer" was ... withdrawn and titulated a "misunderstanding" Moltke got his "free hand" in the west.)

3. Britain still lay the Dover barrage.
The "full" barrage " ... with mines and all the stuff ?

How,why and with what "official" arguements for the neutrals and the no-war party in Britain itself would Britain do this wihtout almost automatically becomming a belligerent ?
 
... like at least that part.

:eek:Active plans in 1914 ??
Never heard and esp, never read about them.

Source please.
I haven't heard of any Russian war plans for the defensive, of France, Russia, Britain, Germany and AH, only AH had more than one mobilisation plan available in 1914, ALL the others had single mobilisation/deployment plans.

"In 1912, they altered Plan 19, creating a new Plan 19A with two variants “A” and “G." Variant G was a contingency plan that was to be used in case the Germans began the war by launching a massive attack on Russia rather than France."
 

Deleted member 1487

No Schlieffen Plan, no war. The entire reason the Germans were willing to go to war was that they thought they could knock France out quickly, not get dragged into a long term two front war where they had to invade the depths of Russia.
 
Germany mobilized eight armies in August 1914, armies being composed roughly of ten divisions each. Two of these armies, the First and the Second, were over-strength and one army, the Seventh, was under-strength. The Seventh was tasked with guarding Alsace while the First and the Second were the spearhead of the push through Belgium into northern France.

Of the remaining five armies, the Eighth was in East Prussia, and the Fifth and Sixth were tasked with defending Lorraine and repelled the French offensive. The Third and Fourth naturally were positioned between the First and Second on the right and the Fifth and Sixth on the left.

Two additional corps were mobilized in September and sent East, where they formed what became the Ninth Army. This decision has been much criticized.

So they could send the First and Second armies east without compromising the defense of Metz. The Fifth and Sixth armies aren't going nowhere. There is still enough left in the West to contest a French or even an Anglo-French invasion of Belgium.

The issues are more how much they need the iron and coal fields they seized, and what can they really accomplish in Poland and Lithuania before the frost sets in.
 
No Schlieffen Plan, no war. The entire reason the Germans were willing to go to war was that they thought they could knock France out quickly, not get dragged into a long term two front war where they had to invade the depths of Russia.

Question Wiking?, So then a firm British note that says any invasion of Belgium absolutely results in war results only in either:
a) Germans just do OTL Schlieffen anyway.
b) Germans make a major effort to diffuse what they started and avoid war (but perhaps the already declared war on Russia at this point)
 

NoMommsen

Donor
@Mackus Well, from what I've raed so far (Norman Ston "The Eastern Front", David R. Stone "The Russian Army in The Great War", Holger H. Herwig "The First World War", Pritt Butlar "Collision of Empires", "Strategic Outline of the War 1914-1918" compiled by J.K. Tsichovich in 1922) IMO Joshua A. Sanborn interpreted the variant "G" of the two variants of Plan 19A wrongly as a mere "contingency" plan.

It was more of an "offer of choice" to the political leadership, where to put their "main" effort in the russion "War on two-fronts" problem. The two fronts being Germany AND Austria.
In 1914 the russians first decided, that they liked to fight Austria first much more and therefore went on with (mostly) plan 19A-A (Austria) as revised in 1913 once more. Their choices were :
  • main effort first on Austria, doing against the germans just "just as much as to fullfill" the Franco-Russian alliance and after having significantly beaten Austrian, deprived Germany of its only ally, go for beating Germany. ... or
  • main effort first against Germany in conjunction with France, fighting Austria to - more or less - "just" keep it at bay (what they were very confident, as they had the Austrian war-plan [Redl-affair]) and after Germanys defeat ion two fronts finishing of Austria
In the beginning the choose the first option, as they were much more interested in getting Austria down.
However, shortly after all the DoWs of Germany, they decided differently and wanted to execute 3 offensives at once :
- beating, Austria,
- invading/crushing East Prussia AND
- making/preparing an offensuve against Posznan to Berlin (creation of 9th and 10th armies, ordered on 6th August 1914)

From 1910/12 there was never a thought, that Germany might attack Russia with force in the beginning.
The western deployment/attack alike the Schlieffen-memorandum was something considered as sure as the final "Amen" in church. ... by the french as well as the russians.

EDIT : Have attached the mention versions of the russian Plan A
01 Deployment Plan A.jpg 02 Deployment Plan A 1913.jpg
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Question Wiking?, So then a firm British note that says any invasion of Belgium absolutely results in war results only in either:
a) Germans just do OTL Schlieffen anyway.
b) Germans make a major effort to diffuse what they started and avoid war (but perhaps the already declared war on Russia at this point)
Yes.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Question Wiking?, So then a firm British note that says any invasion of Belgium absolutely results in war results only in either:
a) Germans just do OTL Schlieffen anyway.
b) Germans make a major effort to diffuse what they started and avoid war (but perhaps the already declared war on Russia at this point)
Both happened IOTL with your "b)" happening first followed by your "a)".
 
So they could send the First and Second armies east without compromising the defense of Metz. The Fifth and Sixth armies aren't going nowhere. There is still enough left in the West to contest a French or even an Anglo-French invasion of Belgium.

The issues are more how much they need the iron and coal fields they seized, and what can they really accomplish in Poland and Lithuania before the frost sets in.

In this TL, the Germans can just not declare war on the French and not declare war on the Russians (if they haven't already) while transferring the forces. Let them declare war on Germany for full diplomatic benefit (and commercial gathering supplies benefit), at least until 1 and 2 arrive on the eastern front. In this TL perhaps the Austrians can keep second army in Serbia, occupy Belgrade and some compromise peace could be reached early.
 

BooNZ

Banned
No Schlieffen Plan, no war. The entire reason the Germans were willing to go to war was that they thought they could knock France out quickly, not get dragged into a long term two front war where they had to invade the depths of Russia.

There is the small detail of fully mobilized Russian armies in the East...
 

Deleted member 1487

There is the small detail of a fully mobilized Russian armies in the East...
Depends when mobilization happens. Also the Russians take time to mobilize, so if the Germans realize they aren't going for Schlieffen they can negotiate to get Moscow to stop...plus it was partial mobilization against Austria, so it is eminently stopable, especially if they force the Austrians to back off of invading Serbia.
 
Top