"Great War What-If" Topic

Schlieffen decides to go East, rather than West.
No invasion of Belgium; indeed, no invasion of France. The railway timetables send the bulk of the German forces east.

Does Britain enter the war? Does that influence Italy? How long could Russia hold out? How long would the French batter their army against a brick wall?

There is a solid book on the subject of the evolution of the German Great Staff's war plans called "Moltke, Schlieffen and Prussian War Planning" by Arden Bucholz, which shows that earlier versions did plan to go after Russia first. However, the growth of railroads (among other things) caused them to reorient themselves.

Anyway, say the Germans headed east. France would not likely have sat on their hands--their plans called for a thrust into Germany. So we have a two front war anyway. The invasion of Belgium gave the British public a cause to back the war and enter. I suspect that the Wilhelmine Germans would have provided another at some point--like sending a squadron into the Channel. Italy would have sided with the stronger in either case. As far as the results? Who knows? That is what wargaming and alternative histories are for.

Britain would enter the war no matter what.
Italy was never going to side with Austria-Hungary.
The problem in the east was that armies only moved as fast as they could march, so the Germans couldn't move fast enough to deliver a real knock out blow to the Russians.

I think that Mallen hits all the points.

Gray Ghost is also correct that Britain would have found a reason to enter the war. Tension between Germany and Britain (cousin George and William) had been on a steady decline for years.

The French military thinking in 1914 was always offensive, they would have attacked into Germany, forcing the Germans to react.

I think it would have bogged down into trench warfare again due to the weapons involved, just they would have been in Germany, not France and Belgium.

Interesting point Oddball. One of the crippling blows to France in WWI was its loss of Northeastern France and all of its industries. Moving the war into Germany, say where the WWII West Wall was, keeps France's industries safe and building the machines France needs to fight while at the same time placing the Ruhr in danger. How would that affect the outcome of WWI? Germany is fighting the same war but has lost a lot of maneuver room while France is stronger!

Another thing, if Germany doesn't invade Belgium then does Belgium stay neutral? Holland?? If so then is the war restricted to the old stomping grounds of Metz? Patton had a rough time punching through that country and its fortifications. The Germans also have a shorter border to guard too. Not a pretty picture for the Allies.

"The Germans also have a shorter border to guard too" very good point. Likely outcome is that the Germans finish in Russia and strike a deal or then then sweep through Belgium and enter Paris in 1915 or 16.

Well I dont think the French could have resisted retaking Alsace and Lorraine as quickly as possible, Holland I think would have remained neutral as it did in reality. Italy was at the start allied to Germany until they saw how badly the Austro Hungarian Empire was doing then changed due to allied promises.

If the bulk of the Germany had gone east Russia might have been knocked out quickly and maybe the Czar would have remained in power

If the Germans were to decide to strike East into Russia and Poland, they would have gotten no further than they did in the first place. The Russian frontier was lacking – sorely lacking – in railroads to move the numbers of troops to the positions necessary to pin/block the Russian army. The German assault would have gotten bogged down and stagnated into the same situation that occurred – only they would have initially had more men on the front, which could have allowed for some small break through points, but ultimately, you are still waging a war where you have some 700 miles to reach Moscow – and only a few railroads to use to get there and huge tracts of land to march across if you cannot use the railroad. The war would have stagnated, much as it did in 1916.

The French were ready to fight – and were still smarting after the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71, which proved disastrous. The French would have invaded to support their ally – Russia, and the British would have joined in as well as they had ample reasons to go to war with Germany. The invasion would have been difficult, but not impossible. Germany would have been forced to divert a substantial amount of manpower to defend it's borders. However, the French would not have had the tactical genius to pull off any major maneuvers as they were still operating under old tactical doctrines and war operations protocols which were evolved during the Napoleonic era, and which were not well translated to the modern weapons of war, particularly artillery. The only advantage the French would have were the large numbers of rapid firing 75mm cannons which have a higher mobility than many other field pieces.

In the end, the war still stagnates into trench warfare as neither side had sufficiently developed the means to move troops quickly and reliably through a breach in the enemy lines.

The Germans planned the way they did for a very good reason, and it almost worked. Jovian said it right about Russia.
I do not see how Britain would get dragged in if Belgium was not invaded.

I think Britain would have got dragged in because of the Entente with France and thus Russia

If 'The East Is Feldgrau', thenthe air war/development would be slower getting away from the observation only missions. More cavalry and fewer dominating trenchlines, I would think.

If Belgium and Holland remained neutral would France and Britain interfere with ships landing there with goods obviously intended for Germany?

Would the u-boats have been as spoiled for targets if the ships might be carrying supplies for Germany?

Britain still would have had the better propaganda machine operating in the US, but with a change in the economic interests, access to German markets, and an appearance of France as an aggressor I wonder how much the US position would have changed.

A trench-war induced stalemate with the lines inside Germany, rather than France, might have led to a negotiated peace rather than see the war fought out to a conclusion.

Would the British really have joined in an aggressive war against Germany, to support a French invasion of the Ruhr? Wasn't the Entente Cordiale predominantly a defence pact?

Without the incentive of saving Catholic Belgium, there would have been no influx of Catholic/Nationalist Irish volunteers into the British Army in 1914/15. This would have left a much stronger "Home Rule" movement in Ireland, focussing British attention more onto that island and away from the Continent. Ironically, this might well have led to the granting of Home Rule and a better solution (at least for the UK) to the Irish question.

does Belgium stay neutral?

Belgium certainly stays neutral if given the option but would France and Britain allowed them to?
And without plucky little Belgium you would lose a lot of pre-entry American support

Would the British really have joined in an aggressive war against Germany, to support a French invasion of the Ruhr?

if it is simply a land war then no but once the German fleet begins to operate in the North Sea and Channel, yes

If the High Seas fleet operates against british interests in the N.Sea, but I doubt that even Wilhelm would have been foolish enough to deliberately bring britain into the War.
Would Britain's government have found the political will to join in without a direct provocation? The Entente was essentially defensive and if France was seen by the British people as an aggressor, without evidence of German aggression could the British government have convinced the British people that war was the right thing to do?

I don't think the issue of Great Britain's entry in the war was so pre-ordained as some posters seem to believe. Both the British government and public opinion were divided about entering the war with France against Germany, in 1914. The German invasion of Belgium gave the pro-war "party" the leverage it needed to tip the balance in favor of the intervention. Without this variable, and with Germany on the defensive in the West, it's plausible that Great Britain would have remained neutral for the time being.

In that scenario, the German navy wouldn't have had any particular reason to sail into the North Sea or the Channel -no troops going from Britain to France, nor blockade- but as an answer to French Navy operations, and that would have been a unprobable scenario, given the balance of power between France and Germany at sea. Most probable would be a scenario where the German Navy would have supported operations along the Russian Baltic coast, probably taken the islands that closed the Gulf of Botnia.

Without Great Britain going to war, Turkey would have remained neutral too, most probably. The enigma would have been the actions of Bulgarians and Romanians. My guess is that with Germany involved in an Eastern strategy, Russia would have been sorely pressed to maintain any kind of momentum in the East, while Austria-Hungary would have been able to devote more resources to tackle with the Serbian Army. It wouldn't be too far off the mark that Serbia would have been defeated by early 1915 and forced to sign peace.

In that case, Italy wouldn't have had many reasons to enter the war either. Maybe she would have tried some kind of opportunistic take-over of Albania or Montenegro, or both. Maybe with tacit consent from Austria-Hungary in exchange for a permanent settlement of the Trieste issue.

France would have attacked in Alsacia-Lorraine, but I doubt she would have been able to make a penetration… without trying to outflank the German defences through Belgium. That would have been a casus belli for Great Britain, and it's not very plausible that the French government would have allowed its military to go with the plan. The front would have set in fixed lines, probably, but instead in Northern France, in the frontier with Germany. Certainly, France economy would have been in better shape than in the actual war, as some have pointed, but not enough to make a difference in the operations.

Now, taking a fancy flight of imagination, I envision some kind of naval league between Great Britain, USA and Italy, to impose an armistice between the contendants by 1916. The post-war settlement would have left France and Germany exhausted, but in possession of most of their previous lands. Poland would have been created, but smaller than the real thing (no Galizia), with Danzig declared a neutral city and Poland allied to Germany. Serbia would have lost most of her winning from the Balkan Wars, while Italy would have carved for herself a small Balkan empire with Albania and Montenegro. Austria-Hungary would have survived a little bit longer, before falling to a Soviet revolution that would have created the Union of Austrian and Hungarian Soviet Republics (Hitler would have been an Austrian apparatchik, maybe rising to the Central Secretary of the Communist Party in 1933). Russian Empire would have split in several independent kingdoms; the Tsar would have been expelled and a Republic formed… maybe a fascist Russia would have been created at some point in the 30s.

My 2c.

Of course the German government was obliging enough to declare war on so many potential members of the Entente. This often takes much of the guess work out of whether one should declare war oneself.

The French Government obliged the French Army to mobilize away from the border with Germany (10 km?) to avoid provocation. This turned out to be unnecessary since the Germans provided their own provocation.

Along with Austria's attack on Serbia and Germany's declaration of war on Russia, would this have been enough for Asquith to ask Parliament to declare war on Germany? My guess is not immediately. However, Britain's stated sympathies were with France rather than with Germany so in the long run my guess is more than likely they would.

The French, of course, did attack the Germans along the frontier, with disastrous results. Whether the German High Command would have managed to 'keep the Eastern wing strong' under continued pressure is a fair question. But when you look at what happened to the Russians and the French in August 1914 then, for me, an early Russian collapse seems all too likely.

I'm not sure in that circumstance that France would have kept fighting; but equally, the Central Powers would have had a hard time attacking France along the Frontier too.

But with the French doing so badly in their advances in a perverse way stopped the Schlieffen from working as the German generals decided to counter attack sensing a quick kill I think instead of continuing the withdrawal thus pulling the French further from Paris

YouTube link

IIRC, the Germans feared going further into the Russian Empire than what is now Western Belarus because the Pripyat Marches would strategically split their armies into two mutually non-supporting wings. The railroad net would also begin to heavily favour the defender as the Germans advanced – i.e. reasonably good lateral communications in the Dnepr Valley and poor ones to the West of it.

And all this with Moscow still 500 miles away.

So the drive to the West was pretty much pre ordained.

I agree with those posters who have questioned Britain's keeness to dive into a war with Germany. Professor Gary Sheffield states that Britain's war aim was to prevent Belgium / Antwerp from falling into the hands of a hostile power, as it was feared this area could be used asa staging post for an invasion of SE England.

As long as Belgium wasn't threatened and the German fleet didn't cause trouble in the North Sea, I imagine that Great Britain would have been rather pleased to sit back and watch a few of her rivals knock seven shades out of one another.

The sympathies of all powers seemed to change with the blowing of the wind – Great Britain and France almost went to war in 1898, for example – so I don't see that the 'sides' in any 'what-if' conflict are pre-ordained.