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

Thomas1195

Banned
It depends. If the Tories win the 1915 election, they would find a way to jump in. If the Liberals win, they would stay out for the sake of their party unity as well as the support from Labour and IPP, since the majority of them were Anti-war Radicals, including Lloyd George, while Asquith was at first a Party man.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
@Thomas1195
... hmmm, with the slaughtering of the french troops in Lorrain well covered by the press ... a campaign like : "They (the Liberals) kept us out of war !" might look quite promising for the Liberals at a 1915 election ...
 
... hmmm, with the slaughtering of the french troops in Lorrain well covered by the press ... a campaign like : "They (the Liberals) kept us out of war !" might look quite promising for the Liberals at a 1915 election ...

And hopefully they wouldn't just turn around and go into the war like the guy who used that phrase IOTL
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
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.
This is true. The whole war was because Germany thought this was the last year they could get a fast victory (thinking they could knock france out relkatively quickly and Russia wouldn't even have finished mobilization when they could shift gear east). Boy were they wrong.
 

BooNZ

Banned
This is true. The whole war was because Germany thought this was the last year they could get a fast victory (thinking they could knock france out relkatively quickly and Russia wouldn't even have finished mobilization when they could shift gear east). Boy were they wrong.
Who was this Germany bloke? Certainly no one in the German high command expected the Schlieffen plan was going to knock France out of the war anytime soon...

...between 1906 and 1914, Moltke, the General Staff, the War Ministry, and numerous other government agencies (not to mention Marshal Joseph Joffre, then chief of the French General Staff) openly and repeatedly stated that the next general conflict would be a long one. Therefore, the argument that German military thinkers were laboring under the illusion that the next war would be a short one is untenable... After Clausewitz, Antulio J. Echevarria II
 
Last edited:
Wasnt the french plan to attack through Belgium as well? With Germany not attacking Belgium how do the british react would be a good question. IMO they dont care as I see Belgium only a pretext to jump in.

It would be especially interesting if Germany is warned by the British that invading Belgium means war but as they attack on the East they didnt wanted to anyway. It would be after this that french troops do invade Belgium.
 
Last edited:
It depends. If the Tories win the 1915 election, they would find a way to jump in. If the Liberals win, they would stay out for the sake of their party unity as well as the support from Labour and IPP, since the majority of them were Anti-war Radicals, including Lloyd George, while Asquith was at first a Party man.
There's also the pressing matter of the Government of Ireland Act 1914. Without an actual war with British involvement, the Suspensory Act of 1914 is unlikely.
 
The "worst" case for the British in case of France going through Belgium is the Belgians calling in the treaty obligations...
What could Britain do that would not tarnish its reputation in this case?
 
The "worst" case for the British in case of France going through Belgium is the Belgians calling in the treaty obligations...
What could Britain do that would not tarnish its reputation in this case?
Once Belgians call UK to help, they defacto temporarily surrender their sovereignty to London. That gives Grey field of manoeuvrer.

UK sends BEF to Belgium as peacekeeping force, and then "demands" from French to give up what French never wanted, such as "forcing them" to stay south of Meuse, but simultaneously guarantee French unobstructed passage through Wallonia south of Meuse.
Belgium: "UK, why you didn't kick out French out of Belgium?!"
UK: "Its called tactful diplomacy and compromise, you Ardennian barbarians. You're the ones who called us for help, so don't question the means by which we provide it."
And if Germans accidentally, for example during counter-attack against French violate Belgian territory, UK has its CB to declare war on Germany, for "escalating already inflamed situation in Belgium".
 
Once Belgians call UK to help, they defacto temporarily surrender their sovereignty to London. That gives Grey field of manoeuvrer.

UK sends BEF to Belgium as peacekeeping force, and then "demands" from French to give up what French never wanted, such as "forcing them" to stay south of Meuse, but simultaneously guarantee French unobstructed passage through Wallonia south of Meuse.
Belgium: "UK, why you didn't kick out French out of Belgium?!"
UK: "Its called tactful diplomacy and compromise, you Ardennian barbarians. You're the ones who called us for help, so don't question the means by which we provide it."
And if Germans accidentally, for example during counter-attack against French violate Belgian territory, UK has its CB to declare war on Germany, for "escalating already inflamed situation in Belgium".
So lets say the French invade Belgium, that is a DoW however you put it, and the Belgians call the British to enforce the guranteed neutralety. So Imo Britain would likely have to force the French out or declare war. There is little wiggle room for Grey or anyone else to do much else. And if the British declare the south of Belgium a free shot for the French, they can not declare against Germany for doing the same thing.
I know many see the Entente as the "good" guys in WWI, but for me it was a grey war with all sides doing shady things. So please why would the British people be enthusiastic for a war against Germany with France, when the French forced them into the war. Couple that with the likely inner problems the British will face in Ireland and Imo you get a situation that is very unpalateble for the British politicans.
 
And who would make them?
There would be far less support for semi-justifiable war with France than for war with Germany.
You know, I did not specify whom of the signatories the Belgians would call in. So If they call BOTH Britain and Germany, what will Britain do? Let the Germans do as they like and push the French out, in the process doing what they did in OTL, but with no or very little diplomatic cost? Or would Britain try to keep a hand in the way the war will develop and bite the sour apple.
Either they go in and do something and keep both sides out of Belgium, what in this circumstance would suit the Germans well, or the Germans could yuse the "scrap of paper" to trounce the Entente and Britain diplomaticaly if they later do something...
Either way the major source for a fast Britiash entry on the French side is gone. And with howerver the situation develops maybe the British willingness at all.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Germans' only mobilization plan for invading Belgium and starting the "Schlieffen Plan"? In that case, they'd have to be improvising the entire mobilization process as they went which could slow thing down and leave their army in chaos for a while if they decided to concentrate on Russia first.
 
Once Belgians call UK to help, they defacto temporarily surrender their sovereignty to London. That gives Grey field of manoeuvrer.

UK sends BEF to Belgium as peacekeeping force, and then "demands" from French to give up what French never wanted, such as "forcing them" to stay south of Meuse, but simultaneously guarantee French unobstructed passage through Wallonia south of Meuse.
Belgium: "UK, why you didn't kick out French out of Belgium?!"
UK: "Its called tactful diplomacy and compromise, you Ardennian barbarians. You're the ones who called us for help, so don't question the means by which we provide it."
And if Germans accidentally, for example during counter-attack against French violate Belgian territory, UK has its CB to declare war on Germany, for "escalating already inflamed situation in Belgium".

Hu? Why shouldn't the germans violate the belgian neutrality if both France and Britain do it? I'm pretty sure France invading it with british blessing already "escalated an inflamed situation."
 
The thing with World War one, is that armies quickly began to outrank diplomats.
Sure as soon as the fighting was joined.

But this starts before the start of the war. And the important point was that the British draw the line for Belgium. So they then doing a 180 is IMO not that likely. Esp. as the French are the ones that violate Belgium now.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Germans' only mobilization plan for invading Belgium and starting the "Schlieffen Plan"? In that case, they'd have to be improvising the entire mobilization process as they went which could slow thing down and leave their army in chaos for a while if they decided to concentrate on Russia first.

You are 100% correct.

The funny thing is people laugh at AH who had 2 plans and got the worst possible result by trying to switch from one to the other in the political confusion, but then say Germany should have done exactly the same thing. It was typical of the state of the art at the time that the plan for war had to be decided in advance based on military calculations, trying to change this to achieve ephemeral political goals at the last second is not a recipe for success, only failure.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Not really, the Russians planned to set 2 armies against East Prussia at M+2 weeks and another 2 armies against Silesia at M+6 weeks, so the window to attack France was defined as such.
Am I the only one who has noticed that defeating France in 1870/71 took six months, not six weeks????????

And even then France would have been all but unable to keep the German army busy and wait for reinforcements, if there had been any to wait for.
 
Top