WWI: Alternate German Commander in Chief

[maverick]

In 1906 Alfred von Schlieffen, a man we remember for a war plan that he might not have intended to be a war plan at all, retired and was replaced by Helmuth von Moltke, a man whose main qualifications were being named Helmuth von Motlke and being buddies with the Kaiser...

Amongst the other candidates, there was this guy, Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz...

I need better sources, but unless you can prove otherwise...this man, who saw service in the war of 1870 and with the Ottoman Empire, lost many political opportunities when he spoused the idea that after 1870, France could not lose in a short and victorious war....

Goltz stressed how, despite the rapid initial victory against the Imperial French forces at Sedan, the new French Republic had been able to mobilise national will for a Volkskrieg ("War of the People") which dragged on for many more months (the Siege of Paris, the campaign on the Loire and the partisans behind German lines, the latter tying down 20% of German strength), the implication being that it was therefore unrealistic to expect a quick victory over France in any future war.

Now, what if this man had been Chief of the General Staff instead of von Motlke? does this equate to CP victory?

Does the Schlieffen plan change dramatically? Maybe he takes a defensive position in Alsace and starts with an invasion of Poland...

 

[David S Poepoe]

I would look at Osprey Press' publication 'The Kaiser's Warlords'.

On the whole von Moltke never held the position of Commander-in-Chief and that of the Chief of the General Staff shared conflicting power with the Minister of War and another government official.

The Imperial Army had severe organisational problem at its top and that contributed greatly to how things went in 1914.

Anyone taking over from von Schlieffen would have recognized how unworkable his 'Plan' was. What he outlined, but never worked thru, was plan that needed a larger army (in fact it was developed as a means to justify the expansion of the army) and that the plan had nothing to do with European relations - which Moltke did take into account with his. There is fairly good evidence that the plan executed in August 1914 was entirely Moltke's design.

Anyone else in authority may have kept the 'Russia First' option open, which Moltke terminated in 1912/13. Its also likely that anyone besides Moltke may have been more level headed during the July Crisis and actually have looked at how things were spinning out of control. Moltke was under tremendous pressure and the Kaiser wasn't the easiest fellow to work for. Also its more than likely that anyone would have pressured Vienna alot more to get some idea of what was happening and actually communicated more openly to Conrad on the importance of working together.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Moltke was the one pressing for war, the kaiser was trying to pull back from the brink. The quote goes "I'm sorry your highness, it is far too late to pull back now." "Your uncle would have given me a different answer." Ouch.
Yeah, the situation was not a good one, but Moltke did not buck until later in the campaign.

 

[miketr]

I need better sources, but unless you can prove otherwise...this man, who saw service in the war of 1870 and with the Ottoman Empire, lost many political opportunities when he spoused the idea that after 1870, France could not lose in a short and victorious war....

I suggest you take a look at The Kaiser's Army: The Politics of Military Technology in Germany during the Machine Age, 1870-1918 by Eric Dorn Brose. That would have a great deal of info; I wrote a alt-history time line where Goltz plays a much greater role than historic but wasn't Chief of the Great General Staff.

Now, what if this man had been Chief of the General Staff instead of von Motlke? does this equate to CP victory?

Maybe... I suggest it shifts things and you would have to see where they flow from there. See below.

Does the Schlieffen plan change dramatically? Maybe he takes a defensive position in Alsace and starts with an invasion of Poland...

Goltz was in favor of the following that would come into play.

A true national mass army using all of Germany's available peace time manpower.

Constructing a stronger system of fortress along the French border.

Favored more artillery and a more central role for it and engineers.

He viewed any future general war as being one that would last some time and favored preparing to fight such a conflict. Economic General Staff, larger stock piles of munitions, stock piles of key materials, etc.

Favored closer relations with the Ottoman Empire.

I suspect that if Chief of the General Staff he would favor a Russia first stance. For him to have max effect the best choice is Minister of War as the Minister wrote up the budget requests for the Reichstag and in effect the make up of the army even if the Chief of the General Staff had his own thoughts. So Goltz could force through a number of changes even if Moltke is still Chief of the General Staff.

Michael

 

[Hnau]

Goltz sounds like the perfect guy for a Central Powers victory timeline... wow, he could see everything in advance! Moltke sucks. I wonder if Goltz could move the German Army towards adopting infiltration tactics sooner (the use of stormtroopers and other WWI-based tactics).

 

[MrP]

Goltz sounds like the perfect guy for a Central Powers victory timeline... wow, he could see everything in advance! Moltke sucks. I wonder if Goltz could move the German Army towards adopting infiltration tactics sooner (the use of stormtroopers and other WWI-based tactics).

I don't see why not. There's some French captain who wrote a pamphlet covering much the same ground as Stosstaktik, and the British employed similar ideas, which is often forgotten. With the top down training system of the German army, Goltz will have an easier time of it when he decides on it.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I would consult Annika Mombauer's Helmut von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War. I'm pretty sure von der Goltz is mentioned in it, I read it last year and it was very interesting.

 

[miketr]

Goltz sounds like the perfect guy for a Central Powers victory timeline... wow, he could see everything in advance! Moltke sucks. I wonder if Goltz could move the German Army towards adopting infiltration tactics sooner (the use of stormtroopers and other WWI-based tactics).

Here is a quote from Moltke the Younger

“A General European War of murder, a massacre whose horror can only make one shudder to think… It will be a People’s War that cannot be won in one decisive battle but will turn into a long, difficult, painful struggle.” -Helmut von Moltke 1905 on the nature of the next war.

Moltke wasn't a fool or blind he like many had a fairly good idea of what was to come in general terms or in part at least. Moltke went with the S plan because that alone offered Germany a chance for the short war. Any other choice like a Russia first means Germany is in for the long war. Moltke was a senior staff officer and had scene the numbers he figured that a long war would be become not one of tactics or strategy but of industrial, material and manpower reserves. A numbers game in otherwords and he didn't see good odds for victory there. So he did what his military tradition dictated; go for the throat in an attempt to knock France out quickly.

As to light infantry tactics that Brose has a good section on that. Goltz as I recall favored open order tactics but his focus was more artillery and engineers along with a training system for them along with more machineguns, etc. The true issue with open order tactics was the decentralized setup of the Imperial Army as long as the regimental commanders were able to meet the trainning norms for annual inspection they could do whatever the heck they wanted. Thats why when the war broke out you had different units using different tactics from wide open Boer Tactics to Line / Column tactics out of the Franco Prussian war. The later was mostly in the reserve formations but wasn't just there. You want to make a change to basic infantry tactics you need the basic infantry hand book rewritten and done at least several years before the war.

AHP would have some info on what Pasha Goltz might have done if he had a free hand to shape the German army.

Michael

 

[Hnau]

Hmmm... in any case, Hindeburg and Ludendorff would in my opinion still take over shortly after the beginning of the war.

 

[miketr]

Hmmm... in any case, Hindeburg and Ludendorff would in my opinion still take over shortly after the beginning of the war.

If Germany has an Russia first stance why would that be? The Chief of Staff is going to have his HQ in the east and not the west. Also keep in mind that Hindenburg was in retirement at the start of the war and Ludendorff was a staff officer. No way it is given that they still hook up let alone become the 3rd Supreme Command.

Michael

 

[MrP]

Hmmm... in any case, Hindeburg and Ludendorff would in my opinion still take over shortly after the beginning of the war.

As Mike says, that's far from inevitable. L got a lot of recognition because of his actions at the Liege coup de main, which won't occur if the strategy is Russia first. H only turned up because Prittwitz informed HQ of his intention to retreat. He only planned to retreat because he was so badly outnumbered and had failed to knock out the Russians with his initial blow. Even then, the plan generally ascribed to H&L was already being enacted by P's staff when they arrived to take charge. That said, L strikes me as the sort of fellow who'd distinguish himself by some similarly bold move wherever he was put . . . unless he got himself killed doing so, as many fine commanders did in the real war.

 

[Riain]

The whole 'go east in 1914' idea sucks arse, it is the most unworkable idea ever. Where are the strategic targets, where are the massive armies to engage and defeat? The S plan give the Germans an opportunity to bring to battle under favourable conditions virtually the entire fighting strength of France AND the advance carries it toward the French capital and communications centre, occupying half of France's industry along the way. Even failure gave Germany the strategic position to defeat Russia in 1917 and drive French armies to mutiny. There is nothing in Poland that offers anything even close to these rewards for success or consolations for failure.

 

[miketr]

The whole 'go east in 1914' idea sucks arse, it is the most unworkable idea ever. Where are the strategic targets, where are the massive armies to engage and defeat? The S plan give the Germans an opportunity to bring to battle under favourable conditions virtually the entire fighting strength of France AND the advance carries it toward the French capital and communications centre, occupying half of France's industry along the way. Even failure gave Germany the strategic position to defeat Russia in 1917 and drive French armies to mutiny. There is nothing in Poland that offers anything even close to these rewards for success or consolations for failure.

The problem with the S plan is that Moltke was unsure of the logitics behind it and history proved that there wasn't the logistics to support the advance. Also the diplomatic cost proved rather nasty.

The advantage of the East First plan is the following.

1) Secures the eastern frontier especially the industrial center of Silesia.
2) Provides direct aid to the Germans military ally Austria-Hungary and helps secure their eastern frontier.
3) Pinching off the bulge of Congress Poland shortens the front a great deal, Warsaw had some industry but Poland as a whole was expected in economic terms to provide food.
4) The key is that with Congress Poland in hand it allows follow on attacks the next year into the Baltics and or the Ukraine. In economic terms the Ukraine would be the key target for a follow on attack.

The Germans assumed the Russians would do one of two things. Defend Poland in which case the Germans and Hapsburgs can attempt to bring off a vast battle of annihilation or not defend it in which case the territory is quickly occuppied at little cost.

Long term the east first strategy assumes the Germans are acting to seize economic targets to give them the resources to fight the long war and to change the basic economic math that favors France-Russia.

Michael

 

[von Adler]

The main advantage of going east is that it would butterfly away the Austrian and Ottoman defeats in 1914, leaving both in a much stronger position. it might also get Romania on the Central Powers' side, maybe even Sweden (which had 12 divisions and a cavalry division, a strong navy and a very well trained modern army) - which means Russia is on the ropes by autumn 1915, IMHO.

 

[miketr]

The main advantage of going east is that it would butterfly away the Austrian and Ottoman defeats in 1914, leaving both in a much stronger position. it might also get Romania on the Central Powers' side, maybe even Sweden (which had 12 divisions and a cavalry division, a strong navy and a very well trained modern army) - which means Russia is on the ropes by autumn 1915, IMHO.

Thats hindsight but a very valid point.

Michael

 

[MrP]

East also probably means proper staff talks between Germany and A-H, rather than the ad hoc arrangements of OTL.

 

[RCTFI]

There's also the issue of whether the British would get involved if Belgium isn't invaded, and the Germans take a defensive stance in the west. Certainly the Brits would be far less enthusiastic about their participation in the war if not for the rape of Belgium...

Plus, I've read some stuff about how the French were discussing plans to invade through Belgium in the event their offensives into Germany dead-locked... which they would've. So one might even see the Belgians being forced into the German camp...

And if that happened, well, what would that do to the British public's perception of their traditional-enemy turned ally? One has to wonder...

 

[David S Poepoe]

There's also the issue of whether the British would get involved if Belgium isn't invaded, and the Germans take a defensive stance in the west. Certainly the Brits would be far less enthusiastic about their participation in the war if not for the rape of Belgium...

Plus, I've read some stuff about how the French were discussing plans to invade through Belgium in the event their offensives into Germany dead-locked... which they would've. So one might even see the Belgians being forced into the German camp...

And if that happened, well, what would that do to the British public's perception of their traditional-enemy turned ally? One has to wonder...

One has to wonder...but the British would not have gone over to the German side and would have even pressured the Belgians to letting the French thru. The British were not going to allow the Germans to dominate the continent.

 

[Riain]

What is to happen to the Rhineland with 5 French armies pushing toward it? Germany will only be able to redeploy 2 or maybe 3 armies east, it's not going to give them benefits which can match the S plan.

 

[Onkel Willie]

If this Goltz guy had been in charge he probably would have thought of that and built a strong defensive line. IOTL the French didn't advance very far in Alsace-Lorraine. Now the Germans can concentrate what troops they have in the west on a shorter front that probably is heavily fortified if Germany has chosen a Russia-first policy early on.