Would France have surrendered if Germany took Paris in September 1914

[Mikestone8]

Remember that the frontline is much larger here than it was OTL, depending on the rest of the events, it could be at least twice if not even 3 times larger.

Where would being three times longer take it? All the way to the Mouth of the Loire? That gives the Germans close to half of France. Is that likely?

I 'd have thought in terms of a line similar to that of early September 1914, but running south of Paris rather than north of it, perhaps roughly following the Seine to the Channel coast. This would indeed be longer than OTL's Western Front, , but not*that* long.

Also, we have to consider how the Germans came to take Paris. I can't see that happening unless at least one of the main French armies is destroyed, and the others "elbowed" southward so that Paris is uncovered. I'd have thought V Army the likeliest candidate, probably taking the BEF down with it sometime during the Battle of the Frontiers. After inflicting such massive losses, I'd have thought that is either party can manage a Gorlice-Tarnow kind of breakthrough it's more likely to be the Germans than the French.

One firther thought. If Paris' main value is as a source of revenue, would there be much point in recapturing it. After changing hands twice (or even once?) t's going to be a valueless pile of rubble.

 

[lotrian]

My assumption from the OP was that Paris would fall in an offensive during OTL Battle of the Marne.
Joffre initially wanted to consolidate behind the Seine and Aube. He was forced on the offensive by both the German movement avoiding Paris and Gallieni's response sending Maunoury.
My military strategy knowledge is narrowing 0, so I'm not gonna try to delve into the how.

Based on this, I imagined that the frontline would run from Flanders to Paris and maybe a bit further to Fontainebleau, and then to Verdun. I may have not realised the distances involved are not that big, so how much more frontline would that be ? 300km?

 

[dcontreras]

I just don't see the UK keeping up the fight if France is knocked out... no real reason to....

I think you are right But at this point, the British will likely keep maybe token forces in Europe, to look after the interests of Belgium?, and concentrate on their defenses of its overseas Empire. Possibly their troops are likely now dispersed to defend their colonies in Africa , where Germany has possessions, and shore up their defenses of Gibraltar, and the Suez, and any threat to the jewel of their empire that is India.

Their Naval power would likely still keep the Germans bottled up in Europe, and if Germany is now continuing the Schelieffen Plan, they are more concerned with the long drawn out war they planned with Russia. I also don't see the Italians entering the war in 1915 against their former allies if Austria-Hungary has more help from Germany who no longer is tied to fighting on two fronts. Russia is still Russia, large, still backward and holding on to old military strategies and command systems. If France is out, Britain concerned with their overseas empire, no two front war for Germany, no Italy to join in and occupy Austria-Hungary with a second front, Russia will be all alone against the German, Autsro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires and possibly Bulgaria. All on their front door.

Interesting scenario!

 

[Help]

AFAIK, German goals for land would just be that mine near the border. Otherwise just peace and a bit of money. I think if Germany captured Paris, the French would have had to lose quite a bit, and would be fine with a lenient peace. German goals were more chopping down Russia before it got too powerful, so early on in the war, I don't see too onerous demands against France.

 

[Mikestone8]

fontainbleau is perfectly credible, bi

Based on this, I imagined that the frontline would run from Flanders to Paris and maybe a bit further to Fontainebleau, and then to Verdun. I may have not realised the distances involved are not that big, so how much more frontline would that be ? 300km?

Verdun to Paris certainly, and Fontainebleau is quite possible, but why Flanders? That would make the front line a very funny shape.

If the "Race to the Sea" is starting from west of Paris, then surely it will hit the Channel somewhere around Le Havre or maybe Dieppe..

 

[lotrian]

fontainbleau is perfectly credible, bi

Verdun to Paris certainly, and Fontainebleau is quite possible, but why Flanders? That would make the front line a very funny shape.

If the "Race to the Sea" is starting from west of Paris, then surely it will hit the Channel somewhere around Le Havre or maybe Dieppe..

I was assuming that occupying Paris would not change much to the following Race to the Sea which would happen like OTL but just starting from further South.
Plans were made anyway to destroy every bridge on the Seine, which would neutralize part of the strategic advantage of occupying Paris.
The Germans were over extended and exhausted, (as the battle of the Marne would show OTL), especially their right flank.
The French were exhausted as well, and most likely losing Paris would be a blow to their morale but it could also galvanize them when trying to retake it. It would make strategic redeployments more difficult as Paris was already the heart of the railway system. However, it was less so then than we imagine now, because there were a lot more lines than nowadays. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3ARoell-1912_Karte_der_Franz%C3%B6sischen_Eisenbahnen.jpg

Now you make me realize that this butterfly might be big enough for changing all that.
Both sides would for sure try to outflank and envelop the other, and at this game it is hard to predict which side would win, but I would favor the French because of the same reasons they won on the Marne + the French more important and available reserves (Gallieni corps which was in reserve in Paris + 6th Army of Maunoury freshly deployed). They could cross the Seine back probably around Cergy and threaten to encircle and trap the 1st German Army in Paris. However, during this war, the French repeatedly missed every chance they had to exploit their victories decisively...


Map of the situation on September 9

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Battle_of_the_Marne_-_Map.jpg

As for your hypothesis of a frontline on Dieppe : why not, after all it's very hard to predict how the frontline would move. But if it's stabilized there, that means the French left is beyond the Seine, and there is a dangerous place where they have their left beyond the river, their back on the river, and their right before the river.
As for the Germans, having their frontline so far fragilize them as they need to occupy a huge chunk of France (very populated) with soldiers. Moreover, the whole coastline would be a "frontline" as well, as the threat of a British landing would be there.

The war of movement could likely go on for a while and the trench war we know might as well never exist.

One firther thought. If Paris' main value is as a source of revenue, would there be much point in recapturing it. After changing hands twice (or even once?) t's going to be a valueless pile of rubble.

Well, for the symbol ! Paris remains Paris, even completely destroyed, and any side conquering it would enjoy a huge boost in morale at home and on the front.
I doubt there would be a lot of combat inside the city, as the bridges would be destroyed, the assaults of the French would rather be peripheral than frontal. But if the Germans have to vacate it once, you can be sure they wouldn't leave without destroying and looting everything they can... The Eiffel Tower would be a target of choice, as it had a military value, and TTL could later see Paris being famous for its Art Deco architecture as they rebuilt the city later.

AFAIK, German goals for land would just be that mine near the border. Otherwise just peace and a bit of money. I think if Germany captured Paris, the French would have had to lose quite a bit, and would be fine with a lenient peace. German goals were more chopping down Russia before it got too powerful, so early on in the war, I don't see too onerous demands against France.

Those peace terms are ASB. They would require to change the goals and mindsets of the Kaiser, the Chancellor, the military high commanders, and most industrialists who approved and supported the Septemberprogramm.
The peace terms you imagined sound Wilson-like. No one in Germany thought like that at the time.

EDIT : moved the edition into a new post.


Sorry for the format of the writing, I'm still not mastering the formatting of my answers on this forum when writing on my phone.

 

[Help]

@lotrian
Your formatting seems fine to me, so I wouldn't worry.
About the Septemberprogramm, I checked and you do seem correct, so my bad. Wouldn't the Germans be amenable to negotiating if France was in a position to still fight well, though? German eastern strength would be weak, so to defend themselves from invasion, I would assume they would moderate. After all, the Septemberprogramm was only an unofficial, informal idea based on those elites. I doubt the ability and will of Germany to impose anything near that harsh in the west, as I think the Germans were flipflopping about taking Belgian land to not anger the British.

Also, I think with Paris as a rail hub IIRC, it would be difficult to mobilize troops. Not too important by itself, but with the rest, it might be.

 

[lotrian]

One thing I forgot : Joffre wouldn't stay in charge if he loses Paris. He was supposed to be replaced by Sarrail but the war broke out before they started his replacement. His victory on the battle of the Marne gave him a lot of prestige and he remained in charge.
Here he would be demoted for sure. Would Sarrail replace him ? Not sure, his potential nomination was due to his acquaintances with the left-wing politicians, but in September the government had already changed into a government of Sacred Union. I'll give him 50% chances.
Who else could replace Joffre if not Sarrail ? Gallieni ? Lyautey ? Foch ? Goiran ? Belin ? Dubail ? Lanrezac ?
Also Minister of War Millerand was a supporter of Joffre with whom he was very close. Would he be removed too ? Would he resign ? Would he stay ?

 

[Dorknought]

This will be abandoned as soon as a separate peace becomes the expedient thing to do, by any of these parties.

Given that:

• they have just inked this declaration, for just such a situation
• and with the evidence of German behavior in Belgium
• and that Germany doesn't honor commitments anyway, they are just 'scraps of paper',

You seem to have the over confidence that the German high command had at this time. It still took 6 months to bring about an armistice in 1870-71 and France was on her own then. You only have to look at the input into the September Program to see that any offered terms will be anything but 'expedient' to accept. This is a different situation.

 

[Mikestone8]

The war of movement could likely go on for a while and the trench war we know might as well never exist.

Say a bit more mobile than OTL, but still less so than the Russian Front, since the Western one, while longer than OTL, is still shorter than in Russia, hence each side's divisions are more closely packed. So each side's offensives make bigger dents than OTL, but still essentially dents, with neither side pulling off any Gorlice-style breakthroughs..

One point. Can the French hold Verdun? Even OTL, by Sep 5 it was at the tip of a pretty long salient, so if Joffre has been defeated and forced to retreat even further (as the OP seems to require) its loss would seem highly likely. This could ease German logistical problems by allowing supplies to be sent directly across the border rather than having to detour through Belgium.

 

[lotrian]

@lotrian
Your formatting seems fine to me, so I wouldn't worry.
About the Septemberprogramm, I checked and you do seem correct, so my bad. Wouldn't the Germans be amenable to negotiating if France was in a position to still fight well, though? German eastern strength would be weak, so to defend themselves from invasion, I would assume they would moderate. After all, the Septemberprogramm was only an unofficial, informal idea based on those elites. I doubt the ability and will of Germany to impose anything near that harsh in the west, as I think the Germans were flipflopping about taking Belgian land to not anger the British.

Also, I think with Paris as a rail hub IIRC, it would be difficult to mobilize troops. Not too important by itself, but with the rest, it might be.

OTL they didn't, so I see no reason for them to be more amenable. Especially considering they are further in French territory than OTL.
The Septemberprogramm while unofficial, is IMHO the transcript of German ambitions for decades in the past, and later we'll see in the future. The Lebensraum idea was already a war goal of imperial Germany long before the nazism.

Fritz Fischer, Germany Aims in the First World War

In the East, when they had the chance, they did Brest-Litovsk.
Therefore if they win in the West (which would only be achieved by the annihilation of French fighting capacities), they would do the same. They were not looking for a lenient peace that would set the French up for a rematch. They were looking for a total dominance, freed of any threat.
WW1 was the pinnacle of imperialism policies clashing, and the goal of each alliance was to completely destroy the other. Wilson prevented that from happening to Germany OTL, but the French, while they only wanted to get Alsace-Lorraine at the beginning of the war, were also later, after enduring a tremendous cost in lives, money and destruction, pushing for a harsher peace on Germany, something more similar to the level of Sèvres or Trianon.
The ability to enforce the Septemberprogramm would depend upon the state of the French army, and the will, well if the will was already present OTL after conquering a few hundreds kilometers into France, they would not imagine anything else ITTL if France is totally beaten into submission.
As for the British, I think they wouldn't care much about their opinion since they're already at war with them.

Given that:

• they have just inked this declaration, for just such a situation
• and with the evidence of German behavior in Belgium
• and that Germany doesn't honor commitments anyway, they are just 'scraps of paper',

You seem to have the over confidence that the German high command had at this time. It still took 6 months to bring about an armistice in 1870-71 and France was on her own then. You only have to look at the input into the September Program to see that any offered terms will be anything but 'expedient' to accept. This is a different situation.

I totally appeove and second your post.

Say a bit more mobile than OTL, but still less so than the Russian Front, since the Western one, while longer than OTL, is still shorter than in Russia, hence each side's divisions are more closely packed. So each side's offensives make bigger dents than OTL, but still essentially dents, with neither side pulling off any Gorlice-style breakthroughs..

One point. Can the French hold Verdun? Even OTL, by Sep 5 it was at the tip of a pretty long salient, so if Joffre has been defeated and forced to retreat even further (as the OP seems to require) its loss would seem highly likely. This could ease German logistical problems by allowing supplies to be sent directly across the border rather than having to detour through Belgium.

Verdun at the beginning of the War, was a formidable network of fortresses. It was very secure. Joffre dismantled the fortifications there in August 1915 only (who dismantles a fort on the frontline in the middle of a war ??! 😵).
A German offensive there is more likely to break their momentum, as it would not be a walk in the park, but long, bloody and difficult.
The German losses would be huge in order to make little progress, while the French could hold it with smaller losses.
If they attack there while their lines are not secure in the west, I think they would be expelled from France quickly.

 

[WHumboldt]

Like other posters have said, the only way I see Germans taking Paris by September 1914 is that the disposition of forces be much further in their favor than it was, the most likely source being the encirclement and destruction of the French 5th army at Charleroi, a close thing OTL. There was only a cavalry division screening the entire army from being encircled, if Lanzerac had gone ahead and attacked, or if the cavalry screen had broken earlier, the retreat path would have been blocked, and the BEF isolated and outnumbered. This would give rise to the requisite balance of forces to push the the Siene. As such, there would be no gap to exploit, and the French would be stuck on their side of the Siene much like 1940.

 

[Mikestone8]

Verdun at the beginning of the War, was a formidable network of fortresses. It was very secure. Joffre dismantled the fortifications there in August 1915 only (who dismantles a fort on the frontline in the middle of a war ??! 😵).
A German offensive there is more likely to break their momentum, as it would not be a walk in the park, but long, bloody and difficult.
The German losses would be huge in order to make little progress, while the French could hold it with smaller losses.

I was not contemplating a direct attack on Verdun - rather that the Germans attack further south, perhaps creating a slightly bigger version of the St Mihiel salient. If at the same time Joffre is still having to fall back, then Verdun might be "pinched off" and encircled. I agree, though, that it could still stand siege for some time.

 

[lotrian]

I was not contemplating a direct attack on Verdun - rather that the Germans attack further south, perhaps creating a slightly bigger version of the St Mihiel salient. If at the same time Joffre is still having to fall back, then Verdun might be "pinched off" and encircled. I agree, though, that it could still stand siege for some time.

It is likely such operation would be tried at some point later.
At the moment, their armies are not in place for an attack east of Verdun towards Saint-Mihiel, rather on the west of Verdun towards Bar-le-Duc. That would lower the chances of cutting off Verdun, because an offensive there would be between the 3rd and 4th armies and it is risking racing into a pinch-maneuver trap, especially that the 2nd army is not too far and could support the 3rd in case of need.
There were some attempts during the Marne battle to engage those armies, but they were unsuccessful, partly because of the squabbling between the Kronprinz in charge of the 5th army and the Duke Albrecht von Wurttemberg in charge of the 4th army.
This hypothesis directly recalls my earlier questions about Joffre's replacement, because the General in charge of the 3rd Army around Verdun was actually Sarrail, who was the most likely to become the Commander in Chief.
Under his tenure, the 3re Army managed to hold the line against the German offensive without difficulty, but failed to pursue when they subsequently retreated.
The German success in the formation of the Saint-Mihiel salient a few weeks later can also be directly imputed to him.
The question is, if Sarrail becomes CIC, who takes the 3rd Army ? It could be Foch, Roques or even Petain. Lanrezac has just been relieved a few days earlier by Joffre, but Joffre's disgrace could mean his rehabilitation. All those four Generals seem more competent to run an army than Sarrail, so I would say Verdun holds.

 

[Mikestone8]

Which raises a big butterfly

The destruction of V Army (and probably the BEF with it)_ would mean a super-Tannenberg in the west, virtually simultaneous with the OTL one. So Hindenburg's victory is overshadowed by Kluck's. In such circs would Hindenburg ever become the iconic figure of OTL?

Amusing thought. If Kluck gets the lion's share of credit for this victory, may he be nicknamed "Alexander the Great"?

 

[Jürgen]

We have no idea what the German war goals in France were and using Brest-Litovsk as base for the French plan is not well thought through . The name for Russia among Westerner before the Great War was “The Prison of Nations”. Brest-Litovsk carved non-Russian states out of Russia. This made a lot of sense Germany created a large buffer to Russia, the states created was mostly stable and the states created was afraid of Russian reconquest. Claiming Germany would do the same in France where things on the ground were radical different is illogical. Yes Germany would have loved to carve France up, but it wouldn’t be stable, it wouldn’t create German allies and the people of these states would want to return to France, as such it would be pretty meaningless. Germany is far more likely to dismantle the French colonial empire.

 

[NoMommsen]

We have no idea what the German war goals in France were ....

September-program, SEPTEMBER-program, SEPTEMBER-PROGRAM ... ofC we know the infamous, insidious, evil german war goals ...😜

 

[lotrian]

Which raises a big butterfly

The destruction of V Army (and probably the BEF with it)_ would mean a super-Tannenberg in the west, virtually simultaneous with the OTL one. So Hindenburg's victory is overshadowed by Kluck's. In such circs would Hindenburg ever become the iconic figure of OTL?

Amusing thought. If Kluck gets the lion's share of credit for this victory, may he be nicknamed "Alexander the Great"?

Probably von Moltke stays CiC. Seeing how stable he was, I'm thinking to start a successful Schlieffen plan would a blessing in disguise for France.
The obvious failure of the plan allowed them to step back, reorganize, reassess the situation and correct their mistakes.
Here the euphoria of the success would eventually lead to mistakes that would be hard to correct. How do you sack a sick, anxious and depressive CiC if he's the conqueror of Paris ?