World War 1 (or great war as my Grandad says)

[StephenT]

Moltke "transferred" 4.5 corps to the Eastern Front? As far as I can discover, the entire German Army on the Eastern Front comprised 4.5 corps... (I, XVII, XX and I Res Corps plus the 3 Reserve Division and 1 Cavalry Division).

That's not an awful lot to stand against the 10 corps of the Russian 1st and 2nd Armies plus the 3 corps of the Warsaw-based GHQ Reserve. 3-1 odds...

As for the Schlieffen Plan itself, I've read somewhere that the French road net simply wasn't capable of taking any more troops (plus all their horse-drawn supply wagons, of course). Sending more troops onto the right wing would simply have produced endless traffic jams, not actually increased the German combat power at the sharp end.

The British BEF was already ashore long before the Germans got anywhere near the Channel Ports, as they discovered at Mons. Besides, the ports were fortified - they couldn't have been taken on the march without detaching forces for a siege.

While marching through the Netherlands might have been a benefit for the Germans in August 1914, it actually turned out to be a blessing for them that they didn't. Immense quantities of food and supplies were smuggled to Germany through the British blockade because they were first shipped to Holland, then across the land border.

Regarding Britain, the impression I get from reading the diplomatic correspondence is that the UK government was thoroughly alarmed by German aggression and in strong sympathy with France even before it became evident that the German war plan called for an attack in the West. Whether that sympathy would extend as far as a declaration of war on Germany is another question, of course. However, Asquith's Cabinet had already taken the decision that they would close the English Channel to German warships before the news of the ultimatum to Belgium arrived - even though they knew that this would mean war if the German fleet tried to force its way through.

 

[ptan54]

Page 69, "History of the First World War", Basil Liddell Hart. BCA 1973.

"Schlieffen's plan allowed ten divisions to hold the Russians in check while the French were being crushed."

page 89-90

"One of the most amazing features, and blunders, of the war on the German side is that while the Allied armies were in full retreat, Moltke had made no attempt to secure the Channel ports, which lay at his mercy. The British had evacuated Calais, Boulogne and the whole coast as far as Havre; even transferred their base to St. Nazaire on the Bay of Biscay, a step which not only revealed the measure of their pessimism but delayed the arrival of the reinforcing 6th Division until the German front had been hardened."

Roads could have been a huge problem. Schlieffen was faced not only with manpower problems in 1905 (solved partially by 1914) but also logistical problems (never addressed). How to get enough men to point X in a short time? There was a tradeoff between efficiency and numbers.

BEF arrived quicker than Germans thought, but if they "got military access" via Maastrict, they wouldnt have been held up at Liege, so who knows what would've happened then?

At any rate, there wouldnt have been a Marne if enough men were on the right wing army (since von Kluck wouldnt have to go northeast instead of southwest of Paris), and if it moved slowly, a stalemate closer to Paris may have resulted - a deadlock more favourable to the Germans.

Back to the defensive war in the west - British sympathies surely, Entente cordiale, but not enough for a declaration of war. I dont see British troops marching into Germany if the Germans didnt hit France first.

Here's an interesting scenario - the very alive Kaiser Friedrich III, despite his differences with Bismarck, decides to keep him to have a check on the naval clique, and forges an alliance with Britain. This isnt far fetched as Bismarck would certainly have agreed, and Fred was an Anglophile. The Brits never get the strong anti German sentiment since Germany makes no effort to become a naval power at all. At the outbreak of any future war, the British, along with their fleet, are allied with Germany and Austria. Belgium and Netherlands grants Germany unhindered access once they learn that Britain would back Germany in the war. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Hohenzollern, and Habsburg together....against the French, who were competing against the Brits in empire building, and Russia, engaged in the Great Game vs Britain.

 

[Allenby]

Friedrich was also a liberal, so it would be likely that a constitutional monarchy would be in development, and that the Germans would not engage in the sabre rattling antics that they did under Wilhelm II - thus, no war at all?

 

[ptan54]

Possible.

Not sure how far his liberal reforms would have gone, but no saber rattling is for sure.

The man's the husband of George V's aunt for God's sake!!! A level headed monarch under the *influence* of an English woman!

War would still have resulted, with France hungry for Alsace Lorraine and Austria about to fall to Pan Slavism. Just no war between Germany and Britain.

Then a victorious Imperial Germany, assuming the victory was swift, would have meant no Hitler, no Second World War as we knew it, no Holocaust, Lenin dies in Switzerland and possibly no USSR, no Stalin and his purges. Fascist France perhaps, but it couldnt have dealt the same amount of damage as Nazi Germany did. At best a slightly stronger version of Mussolini's Italy.

 

[Intosh]

Originally posted by ptan54
Possible.

Not sure how far his liberal reforms would have gone, but no saber rattling is for sure.

The man's the husband of George V's aunt for God's sake!!! A level headed monarch under the *influence* of an English woman!

War would still have resulted, with France hungry for Alsace Lorraine and Austria about to fall to Pan Slavism. Just no war between Germany and Britain.

Then a victorious Imperial Germany, assuming the victory was swift, would have meant no Hitler, no Second World War as we knew it, no Holocaust, Lenin dies in Switzerland and possibly no USSR, no Stalin and his purges. Fascist France perhaps, but it couldnt have dealt the same amount of damage as Nazi Germany did. At best a slightly stronger version of Mussolini's Italy.

Oh yes, damned French for being so arrogant that they wanted to win a war where 2 millions of them fall et one third of their territory was ruined by the war.

Damned French for losing the war of 1870 and see two of their province be annexed by the ennemy... The Germans expelled without compensations 150 000 people who preferred to stay french.

Damned French responsible for everything happened in the XXth century...

 

[ptan54]

eh? The post wasnt meant to be anti French, just looking into a what if scenario.

Everyone was imperialist back then, with Wilhelmine saber rattling being the worst. All the major belligerents, except Britain and USA, had eagerly looked forward to an excuse whereby they could start a war.

French arrogance for trying to win a war? Never did I imply this at all. When a country is in a war they will try their best to win it. Isnt that obvious?

Suggesting that if Germany won the First World War the world could have been better off in no way suggests that it was the Entente's fault for winning! Rather, it was Germany which threw away a favourable scenario in 1914. They lost because of their own inadequacies, nothing to do with the Entente who did their part to win.

I never said either that 1870 was justified or not. This is not an exercise in trying to determine the status of Alsace Lorraine, its merely about what could have happened if Friedrich III and Bismarck continued to hold power. And a Bismarckian system, as you will be no doubt aware, would be very anti French. Incidentally I believe France wanted to take huge swathes of German territory in 1918, but the British and Americans discouraged them from it.

When have I insinuated that France was responsible for Nazi Germany and the crimes that it would later commit? Please provide documented evidence of this, otherwise your statement is groundless.

And if we REALLY wanted to "blame" someone for the outcome of the Great War, Germany would be the first on that list, followed by Britain, which wasnt even in the Entente to begin with.

All I am saying that a different end to the Great War could have brought different results, perhaps not as bad as British and American historians have suggested. To this day Allied propaganda about the "evilness" of the Kaiserreich remains strong.

 

[Intosh]

Originally posted by ptan54
Suggesting that if Germany won the First World War the world could have been better off.

For me, this remark is very bad taste.

If you suggest that, and that no nazism, no facism, no communism will appeared BECAUSE Germany won the war.

Then you suggest that nazism, fascism and communism appeared because the Allies won the war.

I never said either that 1870 was justified or not. This is not an exercise in trying to determine the status of Alsace Lorraine, its merely about what could have happened if Friedrich III and Bismarck continued to hold power. And a Bismarckian system, as you will be no doubt aware, would be very anti French. Incidentally I believe France wanted to take huge swathes of German territory in 1918, but the British and Americans discouraged them from it.

The French wanted in 1918 :

the Alsace-Lorraine back and the Saar region which is very small,

I don't remembered, they wanted to annex the left bank of the Ruhr for example.

The rest of territorial losses of Germany were the consequences of the liberation of danish or polish people from the prussian boot which annexed them in the XIXth century.

When have I insinuated that France was responsible for Nazi Germany and the crimes that it would later commit? Please provide documented evidence of this, otherwise your statement is groundless.[/QUOTE]

No you just suggest with a german victory, none of these horrors will happend.

So if these horrors happened, it was the Allies victory, the Treaty of Versailles and the french will to see no more the germans be able to invade them which are responsible.

Let me think about a german victory in WWI

They will annex vast regions in northern and eastern France, the will expelled non 150k people but several millions maybe.

It will provoked a lot more problem that the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. And if french people were able to forgot about Alsace-Lorraine with the colonial expeditions, they will not forget the annexation of the richest regions of France.

They will probably annexed Belgium and the Netherlands will be "puppeted".

This will greatly upset the british.

Germany will asked for colonial compensations : belgium Congo, french Congo and others possessions in Central Africa to unite western and eastern german possessions.

They will also annexed vast territories in Eastern Europe, the german dream of the "Drang nach Osten" be realized. Millions of polish, ukrainian, bielorussian and baltic people under german rules and the same number of potential wars and rebellions.

So yes no nazism, but decades of war against a too powerful and arrogant germany.

 

[ptan54]

Agree with some things in your post but my point is, would that be worse than Nazi Germany?

I would say no.

For a start there would be no Holocaust.

Secondly, if the war was over by end of 1914, surely no Russian Revolution.

No Stalin either, and hence 40 million ish could be saved.

And, who's to discount the possibility of the rise of liberalism and constitutional monarchy later on even in victorious Germany?

So if these horrors happened, it was the Allies victory, the Treaty of Versailles and the french will to see no more the germans be able to invade them which are responsible.

Not sure what you mean here, but I think your chain of logic runs like this.

Versailles => partly causes rise of Nazism => Nazi terror

Note the important use of PARTLY.

You insinuate that I believe the rise of Hitler is ONLY due to Versailles, which is wrong. Many other factors are at stake, such as the Great Depression, and the lack of a cohesive oppostion, and Hindenburg's appointment of Hitler. So Nazi terror is not liked directly to Versailles, and this vindicates me of the charge of "I think France is responsible for Hitler" which is nonsense.

Colonies would have become independent later in the 20th century, so whoever the colonial master was is sort of irrelevant.

Germany wouldve taken the rest of Lorraine, Belgium, and lots of Eastern Europe, very true. They would have expelled many non Germans or Germanised them.

But remember after WW2 the precise OPPOSITE happened. Innocent German civilians in Pomerania, East Prussia, Silesia, and anywhere outside of today's Germany were forcibly expelled, in MILLIONS, often with brutal treatment from the Soviet Army. Let's not forget one simple fact here - to the victor goes the spoils. Germany wasnt the only one contemplating changing the ethnic makeup of Eastern Europe.

As for the Polish territories under Prussian control, look at this map

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1800.htm

Since 1800, Posen, West Prussia were German.

East Prussia was German since 1500
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1500.htm

Silesia became German/Austrian in 1600
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1600.htm

So the claim that Poland was "liberated" from German evil is the same as "Palestine was liberated from Arab control", a statement that infuriates many Arabs, because although the Holy Land was Jewish originally, it had been Arab for over 1000 years straight after 600 AD.