Jump to content

What If: Kaiser Willie Dies In 1909?


Recommended Posts

No offence Stuart but that is where I do disagree. The Germans certainly believed so, hence the Sclieffen plan, and so did the French but they were both wrong weren't they? The French believed they could break through the German lines in Alsace in the first weeks of the war and failed, the Germans thought they could break through the French lines at Marne and failed. Then the French tried again and again until in 1917 the common soldiers simply had had enough and refused to leave their trenches. Is that not what WW I has taught us, that in the years before the war improvement in fire power gave the defenders an enormous advantage?

 

What if the Germans had decided to stay on the defensive in Alsace (spend some of that navy money on fortifications and use the area as a buffer zone), put some troops along the Belgian border as well jus for good measure. Then ship everybody else east right from the start to try and defeat Russia as quickly as possible. It did work in the real war so should work in this scenario as well, just a bit faster. Whether that would be enough to win the war is a different matter, especially once the Americans gets involved.

 

The German Great General Staff did not believe in the scenario I present above, that's for sure. They put their faith in the Schlieffen plan in stead which did not turn out that well for Germany. Easy for me to say since hindsight always comes with 20/20 vision. :D But still, they might have done better going with a Russia first plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 323
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well yes, we know now they COULD have defeated the Russians fairly quickly, and maybe then they could have took the French and British on. The point im suggesting is, we assume the French would not have been able to break through if they had put in a smaller force to guard the Western German border. But what if that was false? And how could the German's take the chance, when they clearly didnt have any idea of the power of modern machine guns, even though they owned them too? Nobody did, not us, the French or the Germans.

 

I guess what im saying is, yes, you are right, they could have done it. Looked at from their perspective, im not seeing how they could have taken the chance. France was just too much closer to the Ruhr than Russia was.

 

My own view is, they were wedded to the plan. They were in love with it, lovingly cultivated it, for decades. Such a thought of throwing the Schlieffen Plan away must have been as traumatic to them as it was for the Soviets in 1986, when Gorbachev told the Soviet Army 'Sorry boys, no big Tank parade through Paris anymore. Only defensive operations form now on'. Not surprisingly they ignored him. :D

 

 

Did they actually plan a Russian only mobilization plan up to 1914? You say they had a plan, im just wondering whether they put as much care and attention to it as they the Schlieffen plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the wiki link Markus gave us the last update for a Ostaufmarsch plan came sometime in the spring of 1913 but by then I don't think it was anywhere near as important to the Great General Staff as the Schlieffen plan was. By then it was probably on life support and soon to die. Apparently there is a book by a man named Gasser dealing with the start of the war and one chapter in it has the heading "Die Kasssierung des Grossen Ostaufmarsch-Planes" wich roughly translates as the cancellation of east march plans. Sounds like fun reading if I can find it. Clearly some time during von Schlieffens time as Head of the GGS they did come to the conclusion that staying on the defensive in the west was not feasible, I just happen to think they were wrong. :P

 

PS. I don't know the first thing about computers or why they change fonts and I really can't be bothered to find out either. Fuck it! :glare: DS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should have used Imperial German script, just for added effect. :)

 

I remember having an argument with Ken about this, when I said I didnt think they COULD do it because all the rolling stock was in place to go West. I guess there is a difference between being placed to undertake a western offensive and suddenly going east, and deciding from the start to go east. The latter ought to be fairly smooth, the former to my mind is endless railway traffic jams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still do not see how people come to believe that defeating Russia would be easy.

 

The war started in the end of July 1914, that leaves at best 2-3 months before Russia turns into mud and snow. I can not see any WW1 army gaining ground in that conditions and Russia now has 6 months to mobilize and prepare defences. And the Germans would face all the problems they did in WW2 from the weather, over the failing transportation network to attacks by irregular or horse mounted forces. So if you have to decide if you try to reach Moscow in 3 months or Paris, the choice is easy imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still do not see how people come to believe that defeating Russia would be easy.

 

The war started in the end of July 1914, that leaves at best 2-3 months before Russia turns into mud and snow. I can not see any WW1 army gaining ground in that conditions and Russia now has 6 months to mobilize and prepare defences. And the Germans would face all the problems they did in WW2 from the weather, over the failing transportation network to attacks by irregular or horse mounted forces. So if you have to decide if you try to reach Moscow in 3 months or Paris, the choice is easy imho.

 

It wouldn't be easy at all. The Russian army was broken on the offensive in WW1. If mostly on the defensive its stamina might have held out for the duration. Just trade ground for time. Going east makes sense if the British remain neutral. Going west makes sense if the British are coming in. The British themselves were not saying what they'd do. That was Moltke's problem; if he didn't go west, what would Britain and Belgium do?

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still do not see how people come to believe that defeating Russia would be easy.

 

The war started in the end of July 1914, that leaves at best 2-3 months before Russia turns into mud and snow. I can not see any WW1 army gaining ground in that conditions and Russia now has 6 months to mobilize and prepare defences. And the Germans would face all the problems they did in WW2 from the weather, over the failing transportation network to attacks by irregular or horse mounted forces. So if you have to decide if you try to reach Moscow in 3 months or Paris, the choice is easy imho.

I'm not going to argue with the Russian weather but how would things have looked like at the start of the mud period if Germany had gone east?

 

In the west the French offensive has ended in a costly failure, while the Russians have been driven back and lost even more men and material than in @. Great Britain is most likely neutral and Germany is still in good standing with the neutrals.

 

That's quite the improvement for the Germans and a good starting point for 1915.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I still do not see how people come to believe that defeating Russia would be easy.

 

The war started in the end of July 1914, that leaves at best 2-3 months before Russia turns into mud and snow. I can not see any WW1 army gaining ground in that conditions and Russia now has 6 months to mobilize and prepare defences. And the Germans would face all the problems they did in WW2 from the weather, over the failing transportation network to attacks by irregular or horse mounted forces. So if you have to decide if you try to reach Moscow in 3 months or Paris, the choice is easy imho.

I'm not going to argue with the Russian weather but how would things have looked like at the start of the mud period if Germany had gone east?

 

In the west the French offensive has ended in a costly failure, while the Russians have been driven back and lost even more men and material than in @. Great Britain is most likely neutral and Germany is still in good standing with the neutrals.

 

That's quite the improvement for the Germans and a good starting point for 1915.

 

 

Well, imho the only advantage is that the UK would not be in the war, but that is a big "if".

 

Apart from that France would still enjoy the active role in the West and Germany would only defend. In the East they would still be a long way from Moscow and each mile they advance increases their frontlines by at least double of that and the longer frontlines will require more and more troops. Troops that can not be sent west, while France will probably be bringing in troops from the Colonies and have the operational freedom to mass their forces for a big attack.

 

And that is assuming that the first French offensive fails, which imho is possible but still something neither side knew in July 1914.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And that is assuming that the first French offensive fails, which imho is possible but still neither side knew in July 1914."

 

Indeed? The Germans choose to go through Belgium to bypass the French border fortifications. If the Germans rated theirs as good as they did the French ones the conclusion would have been that the border is safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the years when the Schlieffen plan was worked out did the Germans ever consider a Russia first option? Was there anyone in the German leadership (military, not Willy) who advocated a Russia first version of the plan?

 

And the French were hellbent on taking back Alsace and Lorraine were they not? No way that they would stay on the defensive.

 

When Graf Waldersee was Chief of Staff, his plan was to mass against Russia and defend in the west. Schlieffen of course overturned that.

 

 

COUNT VON WALDERSEE, who became Chief of the German General Staff in 1888, records that in the course of that year he was asked by Bismarck,

"whether it would be desirable for us to march through Belgium, committing thereby a breach of neutrality. I explained that my advice would be against doing this, whereas it seemed very much to be desired that France should operate through Belgium. The best thing for us, I maintained, would be that we were at war with France and Russia simultaneously. With Austria and Italy as allies the chances would be very good for us, whereas in a war with France alone Russia might be in a position to dictate to us the terms of peace."

Bismarck's reply to this politico-military speculation is not recorded, but Waldersee at least had good grounds for his confidence in regard to Belgium. His predecessor, the elder Moltke, had examined this hypothesis of a French advance through northern Belgium, and found in it no cause for concern. Such a move would bring up short in any case against the lower Rhine, and he arranged a maneuver to meet it -- taking it in the flank by a counter-attack northward through Luxemburg. Reassured in this quarter, Moltke had reversed his earlier war plan, and arranged in case of war against France and Russia together to take the offensive against the latter. In the course of this same conversation with Bismarck the prospects of this plan were touched on, and Waldersee notes: "We agreed that in the event of war we must take the offensive into Poland, but not beyond Poland."

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/belgium/1928-01-01/holland-and-belgium-german-war-plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the heavy defeats suffered at Russian hands, would Austria-Hungary agree to a German unified command in the East?

Unlikely ... -ish. If the German victories of 1914 (and follow up offensives of 1915) keep Russia of AH's back, AH doesn't have to accept German command de jure. De facto the Germans have ripped the Russians several new ones while the Austrians failed to take Serbia.

 

The Austrians might have listened carefully to German ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which German victories? Tannenberg was a victory against an advancing Russian army, but in f Germany focus on the east, the Germans would be advancing. But all early battles of WW2 favoured the defender, so there might be no early victories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Russian rail lines were spaced a different width than Western European railroads in WWII, and almost certainly were in WWI. This was, Ive heard, because the western rails are spaced the width of a Roman cart track, and the Romans didnt conquer Russia. So the Germans cant get to Moscow readily.

 

The Schlieffen plan was weakened by sending troops to Russia and by deploying more troops to guard the border. Presumably the original plan would have done better.

 

German ships dont have to steam 16,000 miles or whatever because they wouldnt last that long against the British fleet. Thats why they built highly compartmented, well armored ships. They knew they would take a pounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I still do not see how people come to believe that defeating Russia would be easy.

 

The war started in the end of July 1914, that leaves at best 2-3 months before Russia turns into mud and snow. I can not see any WW1 army gaining ground in that conditions and Russia now has 6 months to mobilize and prepare defences. And the Germans would face all the problems they did in WW2 from the weather, over the failing transportation network to attacks by irregular or horse mounted forces. So if you have to decide if you try to reach Moscow in 3 months or Paris, the choice is easy imho.

I'm not going to argue with the Russian weather but how would things have looked like at the start of the mud period if Germany had gone east?

 

In the west the French offensive has ended in a costly failure, while the Russians have been driven back and lost even more men and material than in @. Great Britain is most likely neutral and Germany is still in good standing with the neutrals.

 

That's quite the improvement for the Germans and a good starting point for 1915.

 

 

Ok, all that is valid. Now, recast your forecast assuming that Britain and Belgium entered the war on the side of France in mid-August 1914, (ie, just after the German army is fully committed in the East).

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the heavy defeats suffered at Russian hands, would Austria-Hungary agree to a German unified command in the East?

 

No. However, if the German army were mobilized eastwards it could be the case that significantly stronger German forces wind up in Galicia with the Austrians, because the sparse Prussian rail network was a factor in deployment and the Austrian rail net could assist the German mobilization. This may also address the debacle of the Austrian 2nd Army in Serbia, which fell between two stools in 1914. If the Germans are moving east, the Austrian offensive into Serbia may be much stronger and take Belgrade, pushing southwards towards Nish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​

The Russian rail lines were spaced a different width than Western European railroads in WWII, and almost certainly were in WWI. This was, Ive heard, because the western rails are spaced the width of a Roman cart track, and the Romans didnt conquer Russia. So the Germans cant get to Moscow readily.

If going east for real, I'd be interested in looking at the possibility of a German naval invasion of Finland.


German ships don't have to steam 16,000 miles or whatever because they wouldn't last that long against the British fleet. That's why they built highly compartmented, well armored ships. They knew they would take a pounding.

Absolutely. Jellicoe just wires Hipper and asks where in the 25 million square miles of the North Atlantic he'll be in six days, and Hipper being the team player he is radios back and tells him so that Jellicoe and his logistically unwieldy fleet that can't sail far from a major British port can somehow barely get there. Jellicoe radios back and says thanks - the 100 ships of the Grand Fleet burn 30,000 tons of fuel a day at high speed needed to intercept in the Atlantic. Logistics. A battleship doing 21kt burned 2 tons of coal per mile. 30 dreadnoughts x 42 tons per hour each x 24 hours in the day is 30,000 tons of coal per day. At 12kt - where 30,000 tons can stretch out over 3 or 4 days - Jellicoe isn't moving fast enough to intercept at the great distances involved. The Royal Navy was tied to its port network. The Atlantic was huge. Get outside about 1,000 miles from Scapa or Portsmouth and the Grand Fleet required a massive fleet train to do anything. Even an overseas base like Halifax or Bermuda would require significant logistic preparation - and then Hipper just sails elsewhere and Jellicoe is sitting in Halifax with 150,000 tons of coaliers while Hipper is rampaging off the coast of Brazil.

It's 1914. There are no air forces searching for ships or preventing squadrons from moving right up on ports, or landing infantry forces. It's not 1940 where the Twins are skulking around the mid-Atlantic because if they get within 500 miles of shore land based air forces are factor. The British SLOC were a house of cards that one good kick would have sent scattering all over. The Royal Navy had one plan - sit in Scapa and block the exit to the North Sea, letting armored cruisers and converted passenger liners guarding key nodes like New York. Once a raiding squadron was out, they had no plan. Exhibit A; Craddock. If Tirpitz had built a real fleet instead of a museum showpiece, then during mobilization (ie, before the war) those 16,000nm 24kt warships could have mobilized into the Atlantic Ocean with the fast fleet train that Tirpitz also forgot to build, and at the start of the war start attack not only shipping, but overseas ports and facilities. For the first six months of the war, the RN will be on the back foot trying to improvise a defense and this defense would come at the expense of France.

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that reasoning one could claim that the German fleet was mostly defensive in nature and only aimed at stopping a hostile force from blockading the North Sea. Which I actually do.

 

Absolutely. If, for example, an infantry force had been landed in some cove in Nova Scotia and then marched overland to Halifax to try and scupper the port, I'd assume that the Canadian government's response would have been to keep more troops at home and send less to Europe. Ditto for Australia with Spee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I still do not see how people come to believe that defeating Russia would be easy.

 

The war started in the end of July 1914, that leaves at best 2-3 months before Russia turns into mud and snow. I can not see any WW1 army gaining ground in that conditions and Russia now has 6 months to mobilize and prepare defences. And the Germans would face all the problems they did in WW2 from the weather, over the failing transportation network to attacks by irregular or horse mounted forces. So if you have to decide if you try to reach Moscow in 3 months or Paris, the choice is easy imho.

I'm not going to argue with the Russian weather but how would things have looked like at the start of the mud period if Germany had gone east?

 

In the west the French offensive has ended in a costly failure, while the Russians have been driven back and lost even more men and material than in @. Great Britain is most likely neutral and Germany is still in good standing with the neutrals.

 

That's quite the improvement for the Germans and a good starting point for 1915.

 

 

Ok, all that is valid. Now, recast your forecast assuming that Britain and Belgium entered the war on the side of France in mid-August 1914, (ie, just after the German army is fully committed in the East).

 

 

I don't see Belgium entering that war. If the Germans and the French fight it out south of them why would they choose to get involved? They had no territorial or otherwise claims towards Germany.

 

Britain? If something very unfortunate happens at sea they could*. The following blockade would hurt Germany like in @ but I see no immediate effects. The British army was very small and without all the outrage over Belgium we might see fewer volunteers.

 

 

PS: *I consider that not very likely because I assume that the Germans have fully relized the advantages of a neutral UK and thus given the navy orders to treat anything British carefully and respectfully.

Edited by Markus Becker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thing that crossed my mind.

 

The British get along well with everyone. The French, the Russians and even the Germans. So which side to take? A decisive German victory would lead to Germany dominating the continent and that can't be allowed.

 

However, France and Russia are a long way from being down. But what would happen if they win decisively?

 

I think Britain would have been interested in ending the war in 1915 through negotiations that end with no radical changes to the pre war status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Germany would win and now a hostile power building a big navy would control Europe. It would be especially worrying if Germany controlled Belgium. Germany would not be dangerously weakened - that was more a result of a tight RN blockade than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Germany isn't blockaded the odds of her winning look high. I don't see the French break through the fortified border, particularly not with a complete lack of modern heavy artillery and the Russian army wasn't well lead. But they might not be blockaded too.

 

Not being in the war the UK might not size the Ottoman DN and SMS Goeben might operate from A-H bases as the nearest hostile one isn't near at all. If the OE is neutral too the Russians can at least import way more easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...