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

NoMommsen

Donor
Any Russian forces used in a serious attempt to hold Warsaw or defend Vistula are vulnerable to being encircled in an eastern option. In truth, it may be more probable than the scenario I provided above, but would likely be even worse for the Russians...
THX for ... tending in my direction.

So ideally for the germans they crush russian 1st and 2nd armies and encircle russian 4th and maybe even 5th armies. Were would this leave Russia?
... maybe it shouldn' be forgotton, that when this happens there happens also the defeat of austrian 4th, 3rd and what was brought-in at that monent of 2nd army in southern Galicia and around Lemberg, leaving the A-H troops running westwards as fast as they could.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Lets say there is no miracle. Wouldnt so bad a trashing so early in the war coupled with an impotent France in the west and a Brittain sitting out (lets say they didnt react to France attack through Belgium)...
End of August, beginning September France might have gotten a damn very bloody nose running into and being beaten out again of Lorrain, but at that moment it would be far from impotent ... yet.
If Britain has decided to stay out of it at the beginning it wouldn't join right now, too early/fast to switch ... what they still might do a bit later.
...be enough to consider a not so harsh peace for Russia?
And for the above said Russia wouldn't consider whatever peace the germans might offer.
Even after such losses, I doubt they would be 'ripe' for that already at autumn 1914.

But I agree, that the germans would be happy, if such an offer of a 'mild', perhaps even 'white' peace with Russia would come to happen, what would result in :
- Serbia defeated in winter 1914/1915
- France defeated in spring/summer 1915, after another futile attempt in autumn/winter 1914 to strike back
- no italian entry ... or italian entry on CP-side (to get at least a small share off France)

IMO everything else (like participation of Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Ottoman Empire) depends on : Britain in or out and if in when and where.
 

BooNZ

Banned
... maybe it shouldn' be forgotton, that when this happens there happens also the defeat of austrian 4th, 3rd and what was brought-in at that monent of 2nd army in southern Galicia and around Lemberg, leaving the A-H troops running westwards as fast as they could.

I'm not ordinarily big on detail, but the article indicated on 30 August 1914, after news of the German victory spread, the third offensive option was abandoned and the reinforced Russian 4th and 9th Armies were released to the Southern Command - effectively securing the flank of the Russian 5th army. With a greater loss to the North and/or a greater presence of German armies, the Russian 4th and 9th armies would more likely be required to fend off the German threat.

Coincidentally, Conrad, on 30 August 1914, to order 3rd Austrian Army’s left wing north to support 4th Austrian Army’s attempt to encircle Plehve’s 5th Army. However, once 5th Army stabilised the Russian position Conrad changed his mind and chased victories in the south. I get the impression the A-H armies were broken after the full release of the Russian 4th and 9th Armies. If those Armies were redeployed north, A-H would have the numbers and likely ultimately turned the Russian offensive - in my opinion.
 

BooNZ

Banned
End of August, beginning September France might have gotten a damn very bloody nose running into and being beaten out again of Lorrain, but at that moment it would be far from impotent ... yet.

In my opinion, the key advantage of the Germany heading East scenario is it effectively renders France and Britain both impotent - at least until some time into 1916.

In respect of France, its offensives are channeled through a relatively narrow front of relatively easily defensible terrain. France lacks both the doctrine and equipment (e.g. volumes of heavy artillery) to put any serious pressure on the German defensive line until some time into 1916 when significant heavy artillery becomes available.

In respect of Britain, assuming Britain still manages to promptly join the war, there is nowhere it can meaningfully contribute. The Western Front is likely too narrow for the BEF for make a useful contribution and the BEF is tiny and no better equipped to pressure the German defensive line than the French. OTL the British Blockade did not start to impact the Germany war effort until 1916 and in the Germany heads East scenario, the application of the blockade becomes more difficult to apply with a neutral Belgium and likely Italy.

Meanwhile in the East...
 

NoMommsen

Donor
@BooNZ ... with "far from impotent" I meant the ability to keep on with military (futile offensive) operations. They would have still been able to muster considerable military forces.

In respect of defeating Germany in such a scenario, especially in the first two years ... I'm very much with you ;)
 

BooNZ

Banned
@BooNZ ... with "far from impotent" I meant the ability to keep on with military (futile offensive) operations. They would have still been able to muster considerable military forces.

In respect of defeating Germany in such a scenario, especially in the first two years ... I'm very much with you ;)

Understood.

A metaphor for the benefit of Britishers and colonials might be: a German eastern strategy would leave France and Britain perpetually stranded at the non-strikers end, while Russian has to deal with an endless procession of CP fast bowlers - without the benefit of a helmet, pads or box.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Understood.

A metaphor for the benefit of Britishers and colonials might be: a German eastern strategy would leave France and Britain perpetually stranded at the non-strikers end, while Russian has to deal with an endless procession of CP fast bowlers - without the benefit of a helmet, pads or box.
It depends. I think they would know when to stop and wait until the new heavy artillery are rolled out of factories. After all, there wouldn't be any significant territorial losses for both sides. And when bombers are available, the iron mines would be vulnerable.

In my opinion, the key advantage of the Germany heading East scenario is it effectively renders France and Britain both impotent - at least until some time into 1916.

In respect of France, its offensives are channeled through a relatively narrow front of relatively easily defensible terrain. France lacks both the doctrine and equipment (e.g. volumes of heavy artillery) to put any serious pressure on the German defensive line until some time into 1916 when significant heavy artillery becomes available.

In respect of Britain, assuming Britain still manages to promptly join the war, there is nowhere it can meaningfully contribute.
If Bonar Law was foolish enough to campaign for Tariff Reform (he actually planned to do so), this would mean another 1906 election. Liberals are not going to intervene without Belgium being attacked. Moreover, news about countless French soldiers being machine gunned down would strengthen anti-war factions, who might campaign of the platform of "He keeps us out of war".
 

Deleted member 94680

Understood.

A metaphor for the benefit of Britishers and colonials might be: a German eastern strategy would leave France and Britain perpetually stranded at the non-strikers end, while Russian has to deal with an endless procession of CP fast bowlers - without the benefit of a helmet, pads or box.

I can see The Times editorials now...
 

BooNZ

Banned
It depends. I think they would know when to stop and wait until the new heavy artillery are rolled out of factories. After all, there wouldn't be any significant territorial losses for both sides. And when bombers are available, the iron mines would be vulnerable.

I think otherwise. In 1914 the established French military doctrine eschewed any excuse to delay an offensive, including waiting for such trivial matters such as artillery support or intelligence. The ultimate infantry weapon remained the bayonet. It would be a least 20 years before strategic bombers would be any more than a mere nuisance value.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Note that IOTL, Allies spent $147 billion, with Britain running out of its money by 1916 and after that the US had to keep Britain and co afloat, while Germany only spent $47 billion (over two-third of the whole CP war expenditure). The result was a very close war.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Note that IOTL, Allies spent $147 billion, with Britain running out of its money by 1916 and after that the US had to keep Britain and co afloat, while Germany only spent $47 billion (over two-third of the whole CP war expenditure). The result was a very close war.

Is it necessary to post the same comment on multiple threads at the same time?
 
Top