Could Joffre really get away with bashing into a brick wall repeatedly without success? I'd expect him to be cashiered before long if he kept that up, since most idiot generals aren't as lucky as Cadorna.
Obviously Joffre would not be held responsible for the inevitable offensive disasters. When Joffre introduced his offensive doctrines from 1912, he ensured he was increasingly surrounded by like minded French Generals and "
between August 2 and September 6 Joffre relieved two army, ten corps and thirty-eight divisional commanders". Pyrrhic Victory
Joffre could reasonably argue the French were compelled to make every effort to attack the Germans in accordance with their agreements with the Russians. Further, it might not be immediately apparent to all concerned the out come of such engagements are lop sided against the French. Joffre would not have the OTL political immunity afforded to him by the "Miracle at Marne", but he would have more than enough time at the helm to leave the French army in tatters.
Would it, though? From what I understand of 1914, the Russian First and Second Armies advanced too far without the support of other armies that Stavka wanted, allowing them to get destroyed in detail. The coordination between armies on the defensive wouldn't be as incoherent, and they'd also have significant fortifications to fall back on.
The German rail infrastructure in the east could only support the Germans initially deploying 3 armies, which was about the maximum number of Germans the Russians expected under their existing offensive strategy. Therefore is difficult to imagine anything that would cause the Russians to abort the early advance of the Russian first and second armies, even if the Russians had perfect reconnaissance. Clearly the Russian First and Second armies against 3 German armies are going to be destroyed very quickly.
When you look at how many fortress guns they had compared to field guns, it seems like a Russian army on the strategic defensive would be an altogether different beast than what the Germans had to deal with in East Prussia.
As outlined above, there is no plausible way to halt and prevent the destruction of the Russian first and second armies. Without those field armies, any Russian troops used to defend Polish fortresses will be isolated and eliminated after the siege trains from the west arrive. The best possible strategy for the Russians following the inevitable destruction of the first and second armies is a hasty and long retreat to avoid further armies being enveloped and destroyed. This would still be disastrous, but there are no good options.
So, to summarize, the French would be far better off here,
Yes and no. French territory and industry would be intact, but the French are likely to lose similar numbers of troops. Those losses are likely to include a greater proportion of France's most disciplined troops, since those are the ones needed to execute Joffre's offensive vision. Ultimately Joffre's position will become more vulnerable as he is forced to use more second tier troops, who are more likely to question the madness.
the British would be better off financially for not having to subsidize France quite as much
, Plus they do not have to build/replace armies for the western front under urgency.
the Germans would be better off but maybe not by much,
The Germans will be vastly better off. In the west, instead of assaulting Belgium fortresses and fighting battles with strained logistics, they will be fighting battles behind increasingly robust defenses against ill conceived French offensives with insufficient artillery support. In the East they Germans can engage in a war of maneuver against outnumbered and outgunned Russian forces.
the Russians might be worse off, but maybe not if they preserve the armies that invaded East Prussia IOTL,
The Russians will certainly be far worse off initially, but if the loss of the First and Second armies result in an immediate retreat, then the Russians will not be locked in a attritional arm wrestle with A-H over 1914/15 winter. Some Russian armies would also have to abandon vast quantities of equipment in an immediate retreat to avoid total annihilation.
and the how much better off the Austrians are depends on how well they manage their own defenses as much as anything.
This is an extended wank for A-H since it avoids initial devastating defeats from Russia, a Russian strategic withdrawal means A-H not locked in devastating battle of attrition over the 1914/15 winter, improved CP performance means Italy remains neutral and an increased and prolonged German presence on the eastern front lifts the load from A-H.
All in all, it just doesn't seem like it'd be any more likely to produce a decisive outcome compared to the OTL plan, and whereas OTL everybody probably overestimated the Russian steamroller, this plan underestimates it by assuming that Russia's failures IOTL were inherent to its military, when a lot of them were the result of flawed strategy and operations instead, strategy that needs to go out the window when facing the brunt of German efforts.
How can you underestimate the Russian abilities? There are almost no examples where the Russians demonstrated competence against the Germans (offense or defense), without significant numerical advantages. In this scenario the CP powers will consistently outnumber the Russians from start to finish.