WW1 Western front reversed - France invades Belgium

[The Yogi]

On August 1st 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm II ordered the Chief of Staff of the Imperial Army, General von Moltke, to stand on the defensive in the west and shift the German main effort to the eastern front. von Moltke replied this was a logistical impossiblity, but the chief of the military rail transport General von Staab later wrote a book in which he proved conclusively that four of the seven armies earmarked for the Schlieffen plan could have been deployed on the eastern front by August 15th.
​

So, suppose the Kaiser had known this and forced von Moltke to comply or resign?

I'm not going to draw up a detailed alternate timeline, but there is one issue in particular which interests me;

With Germany not invading Belgium, its most likely that Britain would not have entered the war, at least not in 1914 (German troops threatening the Channel ports was a determining issue as far as I've understood).

So suppose now it's spring 1916 - Britain is still neutral, as is Italy (not so eager to join the entente without Britain), half a dozen great French offensives against Alsace Lorraine have smashed themselves to pieces against the German trenches, and Russia is reeling on the brink of total defeat, it's western front collapsing and the Turks swarming all over the Caucaus.

Desperate to land a telling blow before Germany can knock France's only ally out of the war, the French decide to outflank the German defences in Alsace by invading neutral Belgium and march on the Ruhr.

What would be the reaction of Britain in this situation?

1) Declare war on France in accordance with the British guarntee of Belgian neutrality?
2) Blockade France until the French pull back from Belgium.
3) Trade embargo (but no blockade)
4) Vociferous protests only
5) Tacit acceptance, polite condemnations only

What do you think?
​

 

[Kelenas]

Britain would probably have entered on France's side during '15 on some pretext or another, and simply would've pressured the Belgians to let the French pass through their territory unmolsted.

The Belgians would most likely have complied in that case, however you could twist things so that several units of the Belgian army, due to misinterpreted or undelivered orders or whatever, open fire upon the French troops, and things spiral downwards from there.

- Kelenas

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Yes, Britain won't turn against France. But the Britain's entrance will probably be delayed, and that's always interesting.

 

[Falecius]

I'm not sure that the Turks would get involved TTL. The British played a role in that. OTOH, Italy may consider joining the CP, if that'only versus France and Russia (invasion of Belgium destroyed a good chunk of possible pro-CP sympathies here, and not having to fight the RN is a GREAT bonus. ).

However, I hardly see Britain going beyond loud, but probably uneffective, protests. Surely it makes France far less popular in the US.

 

[Perkeo]

Why does France have to march through Belgium

Why does France have to march through Belgium rather than e.g. directly through Alsace-Lorraine?

As for Britain joining the war later: That depends how well Germany does on the eastern front. No credible casus belli and a Russia that is very clearly loosing are not a good start, even for Great Britain. Maybe they try some sort of mediation to limit the size of the Central Powers' victory?

 

[Monty Burns]

Why does France have to march through Belgium rather than e.g. directly through Alsace-Lorraine?

Alsace-Lorraine will be fortified. It's the same idea as the Germans had: circumnavigate the fortresses. Problem is that the German-Belgian border is around 50 km in the mountains. Not a good way to circumnavigate the Germans. The French must consider going through the Netherlands directly at the Ruhr - and the Netherlands wouldn't accept that.

As for Britain joining the war later: That depends how well Germany does on the eastern front. No credible casus belli and a Russia that is very clearly loosing are not a good start, even for Great Britain. Maybe they try some sort of mediation to limit the size of the Central Powers' victory?

We had that discussion repeatedly. There are good reasons that Britain will join. I myself believe that the longer Britain stays out, the less likely it will join unless the Germans are going for domination of the continent. Thus, the British will likely pressure the CP into accepting a lenient peace, with Russia suffering the most without resulting in German-dominated eastern Europe and France loosing some minor colonies.

Britain out of the war makes entrance into the war for several powers more promising. Italy is one, the Ottomans are another, even Japan or Sweden might end on the German side.

 

[HMS Warspite]

Although the UK were obliged by treaty to support Belgium in case of an invasion, by whatever state, the French invassion of Belgium would possibly not lead to war between the UK and France, as both were already on collission course with the more powerfull German Empire.

It would however lead to certain tensions between the UK and the French Republic, as the crossing of the Franco-Belgian Border was a direct violation of the treaties of the past, guaranteeing Belgian Independece. Since Belgium at that moment was not invaded by Germany, it would only have been at war against France officially, as that state would be the agressor at that moment. More important was the attitude of the majority in Belgium, which was Flemish and had a certain aflination with Germany and was certainly hostile to French speaking Belgium, as well as their French brothers and sisters. A sort of resistance movement against the French was therefore likely.

 

[Derek Pullem]

It would depend alot on the stance that the Belgians themselves took. If they actively defended their frontiers against the French flanking movement then at the very least Britain would have to support the Belgians logistically.

However, if the French were only to "snip" a corner of Belgium off in their offensive and use the Ardennes as an access point to the Ruhr, the Belgians and the French may reach an accomodation where they were officially in conflict but unofficially non-beligerent. In this case Britian may complain loudly but not take any action. Unless Germany responded with a counter offensive into Belgium in which case both sides may be embargoed or even blockaded.

It's more likely that the French would seek to detour around the Ardennes and this would risk them compromising Dutch as well as Belgian neutrality. In this case I think the French would be mad but Britain may have to move troops to both Belgium and Holland to defend their territorial integrity

Either way this would probably butterfly away American involvement too as Germany would not be targeting the US-UK trade.

Problem I have with both scenarios is that a France on the verge of defeat would just have to stop fighting to regain some of its strength. Germany would still have to beat Russia and then bring its forces against a France which would be entrenched in its own lines. It's difficult to see head on German offensives against Alsace working so the Schlieffen plan is back on the agenda. The French would be mad to pre-emptively invade Belgium in this scenario as it lets the German's off the hook.

Essentially this scenario gives the German perfect hindsight and assigns to the french a monomanical tendency to sticj with assaults on the trench lines despite the alternative(s) of Balkan and Middle Eastern adventures to assist the Russians.

 

[Falecius]

Essentially this scenario gives the German perfect hindsight and assigns to the french a monomanical tendency to sticj with assaults on the trench lines despite the alternative(s) of Balkan and Middle Eastern adventures to assist the Russians.

That may further induce Italy to lean towards the CP, even assuming the Turks are aligned as OTL.

 

[abc123]

​

What would be the reaction of Britain in this situation?

1) Declare war on France in accordance with the British guarntee of Belgian neutrality?
2) Blockade France until the French pull back from Belgium.
3) Trade embargo (but no blockade)
4) Vociferous protests only
5) Tacit acceptance, polite condemnations only

What do you think?
​

IMO No. 4. option

 

[Deleted member 1487]

It would prevent British intervention at all. Even Grey intimated as much and the French knew it, which is why OTL Joffre was specifically denied any permission to violate Belgian neutrality until the Germans did. So no, France would never invade Belgium in OTL 1914 even if the Germans head East.

Now if the did for some reason, they would be seen as the aggressors, as Germany has no need to declare war on France in this scenario (if they are not attacking France, why declare war?). This means massive unrest in France from the socialists, as the government will be involving itself in a war between autocracies and the public will view it as nothing but unnecessary (Russo-French alliance was secret and not known by most of the public).

 

[Dunois]

(Russo-French alliance was secret and not known by most of the public).

That's very false, the French public knew very well that France and Russie were allies. I have seen school propaganda from that time describing the Russians as France "best friend and ally" and perhaps even more importantly, don't forget the Russian Loans or les Emprunts Russes in French. Here an appeal was directly made to the French people to loan money to the Russia ally in order to foster its own economic development, thousands invested in such loans only to lose their money once the reds swept in power.

 

[Eurofed]

That may further induce Italy to lean towards the CP, even assuming the Turks are aligned as OTL.

Very true. Moreover, an unprovoked French invasion of Belgium shall be resisted by the Belgians as fiercely as the OTL German one (they were fairly pro-CP before the invasion) and has a rather high chance of Netherlands joining the CP.

 

[Wendell]

Very true. Moreover, an unprovoked French invasion of Belgium shall be resisted by the Belgians as fiercely as the OTL German one (they were fairly pro-CP before the invasion) and has a rather high chance of Netherlands joining the CP.

That could have interesting consequences.

 

[Whanztastic]

I did a failed TL with an alternate WWI where the Brits end up on the side of the Germans, so the French make a preemptive move to knock out the Germans to reach the Ruhr industries and negotiate peace before the war dragged on.

I even drew some maps. I know the whole idea is different but the French advance may end up looking like this. Ignore the dates and the Italian front.



Other considerations -

With war raging for a while now within a spit's distance away from their country, Belgium will be much more prepared for either side to try and take a shortcut. That would mean it would be far more difficult to subdue the nation than Germany had IOTL.

I very much doubt King Albert I would allow the French to cut through them either. And I do not see the British trying to seduce him to do so. I see the UK sitting it out until France crosses Belgian borders. If they do it as a little cut through like through Belgian Lorraine, I see 4 or 5. If they cut through enough to require something like seen by what the Germans did IOTL, I see 1 2 or 3 (with 3 being most likely and 1 least likely but I would not ruin it out) happening, depending on how the diplomats handled it.

France invading Belgium is them explicitly saying that they do not care about Belgium neutrality and then therefore they do not care about the British, whose charge it was to protect it. That is hard to back down from.

I do see the Netherlands joining the CP as very possible in this scenario. I have no idea which way Italy would go.

 

[Eurofed]

That could have interesting consequences.

As others have hinted, this PoD is very likely to start a cascade event chain that makes the CP stronger and stronger by making more and more neutral states join their bandwagon. In all likelihood Italy, the Ottoman Empire, and the Netherlands. Italy and the Ottomans because without Britain, France and Russia look the weakest party, they have their potential ties to the CP, and they want a piece of France or Russia. The Netherlands because they are pro-CP to start with, and French invasion of Belgium is a serious threat to them (and calls back nasty memories of Louis XIV and Napoleon). Quite possibly Sweden, Romania, and Japan too, if slightly later, because the CP now really look like the strongest party and they want their respective piece of the Russian pie.

Pretty soon, even if Britain doesn't really like a German victory, it shall look like there is no point in an intervention because the CP have swollen too strong and the military situation of France and Russia is too compromised. Not to mention that they may well have serious trouble in Ireland by this point. Britain is eventually going to leverage its influence in trying to mitigate the effects of the CP victory according to their interests, which basically means France not getting screwed too much (nonetheless, they are still going to lose at least Briey, Longvy, Belfort, Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and a bunch of colonies, as well as the French Flanders as a compensation to Belgium). Russia is still going to be screwed (it shall lose Finland, Baltic states, Poland, at least part of Transcaucasia, Bessarabia, Outer Manchuria, although depending on butterflies, it may manage to keep Belarus and Ukraine).

The USA shall stick to pro-CP neutrality, and may actually pressure Britain against an intervention ("we like to keep trading with Europe, thank you; France and Russia are getting their due, mind your own business").

 

[Whanztastic]

Britain is eventually going to leverage its influence in trying to mitigate the effects of the CP victory according to their interests, which basically means France not getting screwed too much (nonetheless, they are still going to lose at least Briey, Longvy, Belfort, Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and a bunch of colonies, as well as the French Flanders as a compensation to Belgium). Russia is still going to be screwed (it shall lose Finland, Baltic states, Poland, at least part of Transcaucasia, Bessarabia, Outer Manchuria, although depending on butterflies, it may manage to keep Belarus and Ukraine).

Not screwed too much? Beyond the territory edges being removed, loosing Corsica is a major prestige blow with no real importance but still ouch. Also, 'a bunch of colonies' would actually be painful.

 

[Wendell]

As others have hinted, this PoD is very likely to start a cascade event chain that makes the CP stronger and stronger by making more and more neutral states join their bandwagon. In all likelihood Italy, the Ottoman Empire, and the Netherlands. Italy and the Ottomans because without Britain, France and Russia look the weakest party, they have their potential ties to the CP, and they want a piece of France or Russia. The Netherlands because they are pro-CP to start with, and French invasion of Belgium is a serious threat to them (and calls back nasty memories of Louis XIV and Napoleon). Quite possibly Sweden, Romania, and Japan too, if slightly later, because the CP now really look like the strongest party and they want their respective piece of the Russian pie.

Pretty soon, even if Britain doesn't really like a German victory, it shall look like there is no point in an intervention because the CP have swollen too strong and the military situation of France and Russia is too compromised. Not to mention that they may well have serious trouble in Ireland by this point. Britain is eventually going to leverage its influence in trying to mitigate the effects of the CP victory according to their interests, which basically means France not getting screwed too much (nonetheless, they are still going to lose at least Briey, Longvy, Belfort, Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and a bunch of colonies, as well as the French Flanders as a compensation to Belgium). Russia is still going to be screwed (it shall lose Finland, Baltic states, Poland, at least part of Transcaucasia, Bessarabia, Outer Manchuria, although depending on butterflies, it may manage to keep Belarus and Ukraine).

The USA shall stick to pro-CP neutrality, and may actually pressure Britain against an intervention ("we like to keep trading with Europe, thank you; France and Russia are getting their due, mind your own business").

The problem is, I cannot imagine why France would do this.

 

[Eurofed]

Not screwed too much? Beyond the territory edges being removed, loosing Corsica is a major prestige blow with no real importance but still ouch. Also, 'a bunch of colonies' would actually be painful.

'Not screwed too much' in the sense that their industrial potential is kept essentially intact, it only suffers a dent by losing Longwy and Briey, and their manpower pool is intact. Britain would only care that French potential as a great power is not crippled. It would not care about French prestige or territorial/colonial empire integrity, nor there is much it can do about it. Given the circumstances, France could get a much worse peace deal, and it is going to reap a rather bad reputation as an aggressor.

 

[Eurofed]

The problem is, I cannot imagine why France would do this.

Seeking a seeming shortcut to victory when their initial offensives in Alsatia turn a bloodbath, things start to turn pear-shaped for Russia as the bulk of German military power is thrown East, and Italy and the Ottomans join the CP; miscalculation about the willingness of Belgium to resist the invasion and the Dutch to intervene, which makes them think it is an easy march to the Rhineland.