PC or AHC: Two Defense Fronts in Germany

[John Fredrick Parker]

OK, so here's the idea -- in 1914, Wilhelm stops the invasion of Belgium at the last minute, the troops withdraw back to Germany as others set out on the French border; as a result, Britain stays neutral (at least for now).

Given that, I want to ask about the following outcome --

As the Russians break into East Prussia (as in OTL), the French break through into Alsance-Lorraine, and Germany finds itself with two foreign armies on it's soil. The Russians are beaten at the Battle of Tannenberg (or something like it), while the French are similarly beaten, and both armies retreat, putting all defensive lines outside of Germany by the end of 1914.

Now, how plausible is this, and if so how can it happen? Who are good candidates to lead the western theaters during this?

 

[Monty Burns]

Well, given your premise - which I find rather implausible, but anyway - I think Germany would be able to drive back both the French and the Russians.

First, teh German border with France was well fortified, the French never got that far into Germany proper. ITTL, the French have more troops to throw into the German trenches, and the Germans have better supply lines and higher concentration of troops as well. Given that warfare back then favoured the defender and German defensive lines should be prepared for years, I'd assume that the French suffer heavily and then get pulled back.

Now on the other side, Tannenberg was a miracle - and it was seen as such back then (one reason why the Germans tried to take out the French early and thus would never go for an all-out defensive strategy on both fronts!). Nevertheless, in hinsight it shows us some important weaknesses of the Russians, and those should come up sooner or later ITTL as well. As there should be many German soldiers freed from the planned wing movement through Belgium, I'd assume that, even if Tannenberg never happens, the Germans should be able to make the Russians retreat.

So, to conclude: your premise is implausible, but the Germans driving out both the French and Russians is not.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

JTBC -- you find both the first paragraph and France breaking lines implausible?

 

[Monty Burns]

JTBC -- you find both the first paragraph and France breaking lines implausible?

No, sorry if I didn't make myself clear, I find the first paragraph imlausible. As I wrote, Germany was convinced that it had to take out one adversary quickly. This is the whole premise of the Schlieffen plan: a quick knock-out to France. Without that, the Germans would have tried to knock out Russia. A two-front defensive war is too difficult - and too dangerous.

The French breaking through is not implausble, they'll definitely try for it. I just think that they succeeding is unlikely given OTL.

 

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

Perhapse what the German army need is experience, a smaller war (in the balkans?) that teaches the German generals just how well defence can work.

 

[bobbis14]

Well, given your premise - which I find rather implausible, but anyway - I think Germany would be able to drive back both the French and the Russians.

First, teh German border with France was well fortified, the French never got that far into Germany proper. ITTL, the French have more troops to throw into the German trenches, and the Germans have better supply lines and higher concentration of troops as well. Given that warfare back then favoured the defender and German defensive lines should be prepared for years, I'd assume that the French suffer heavily and then get pulled back.

Now on the other side, Tannenberg was a miracle - and it was seen as such back then (one reason why the Germans tried to take out the French early and thus would never go for an all-out defensive strategy on both fronts!). Nevertheless, in hinsight it shows us some important weaknesses of the Russians, and those should come up sooner or later ITTL as well. As there should be many German soldiers freed from the planned wing movement through Belgium, I'd assume that, even if Tannenberg never happens, the Germans should be able to make the Russians retreat.

So, to conclude: your premise is implausible, but the Germans driving out both the French and Russians is not.

Yeah seconded, I think a POD further back is necessary (Germany adopting an East first stratagy)

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Perhapse what the German army need is experience, a smaller war (in the balkans?) that teaches the German generals just how well defence can work.

Only problem there was that two Balkan wars only reinforced that the defense, in the strategic sense, meant losing. It would take a fully industrialized society that could afford lots of modern weapons and munitions to demonstrate how a combined arms defense could dominate. Every major military appreciated the tactical defensive stance and the effects of modern firepower, which is why they turned to skirmish lines and the Schlieffen plan was designed to move German troops around the French fortress system and prepared defenses. Everything was geared toward the mobile encounter battle in open terrain, which is what much of the initial round of fighting was all about. In that situation prepared defenses aren't more effect, as a tactical defensive position can be maneuvered around. Now a full trench line from border to border is difficult to break through especially as a defender has no flank, but no one envisioned something crazy like that, as there had been no precedent and if the strategy of decisive battle played out as anticipated, it wouldn't be possible. But then no plan survives contact with the enemy...

Yeah seconded, I think a POD further back is necessary (Germany adopting an East first stratagy)

This is really hard to imagine, given the strategic situation. If France is too weak to be a threat, then Germany would still try to knock them out first. If France is stronger, they still get attacked first. If Russia is not allied with France, then Russia doesn't fight Germany and Austria for fear of being too weak.

I'd be curious to see what would happen in a "No Russo-Japanese" war scenario, as Russia would never be weakened in relation to the West and the diplomatic crises that saw Germany threaten war to get her way won't start the arms race. The balance of power is maintained and perhaps we never end up seeing a WW1

 

[Chengar Qordath]

I'd be curious to see what would happen in a "No Russo-Japanese" war scenario, as Russia would never be weakened in relation to the West and the diplomatic crises that saw Germany threaten war to get her way won't start the arms race. The balance of power is maintained and perhaps we never end up seeing a WW1

Not to mention that Russia's performance in the Russo-Japanese war was probably one of the biggest factors in the creation of the Schlieffen plan.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Not to mention that Russia's performance in the Russo-Japanese war was probably one of the biggest factors in the creation of the Schlieffen plan.

The Schlieffen plan already existed before that war. It really had nothing to do with that, rather, it was more about Russian's rail ways. Now the Moltke plan was heavily influenced by Russia's weakness after the war and the fact that they were unable to participate in battle for some years after. Indeed the whole concept of a closing window for launching a general European war to settle scores was opened by Russian losses in that war.