Schlieffen's plan success

Liberalbrehon

So let's say it turned out the plan work, the UK procrastinated and the expeditionary just wasn't motivated to fight for the French and fell back to coast, basically if what happen in WW2 happened in WW1 would the outcome have been?

Would Kaiser just stayed in France for a year and two, moved force back to Germany and expect France to pay them?
Would USA have entered war? Germany probably would have stopped the sea war with British.

Any suggestions to what outcome it would have had in Europe but also in Ireland? Would 1916 have happened?

indioblack

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

So let's say it turned out the plan work, the UK procrastinated and the expeditionary just wasn't motivated to fight for the French and fell back to coast, basically if what happen in WW2 happened in WW1 would the outcome have been?

Would Kaiser just stayed in France for a year and two, moved force back to Germany and expect France to pay them?
Would USA have entered war? Germany probably would have stopped the sea war with British.

Any suggestions to what outcome it would have had in Europe but also in Ireland? Would 1916 have happened?

I'd say the Germans would have wanted to get the French out of the way - they wouldn't have wanted a war on two fronts to last long.
As for Ireland - in your scenario the British wouldn't be able to postpone the issue of home rule - but, as usual in Anglo-Irish affairs, I expect it would have been a bit more complicated!
But could the French have been taken out of the equation as easily as I described it? They weren't exactly insignificant militarily.
And could Britain have sat on the sidelines in such a continental conflict?

Fratton Fred

indioblack wrote: »

I'd say the Germans would have wanted to get the French out of the way - they wouldn't have wanted a war on two fronts to last long.
As for Ireland - in your scenario the British wouldn't be able to postpone the issue of home rule - but, as usual in Anglo-Irish affairs, I expect it would have been a bit more complicated!
But could the French have been taken out of the equation as easily as I described it? They weren't exactly insignificant militarily.
And could Britain have sat on the sidelines in such a continental conflict?

If the French has surrendered and the Germans taken control of their navy, they would have become the dominant sea power and most likely expanded the conflict wider to increase the size of their empire.

Maybe.

Jawgap

Probably not much of a different outcome - one of the main reasons the plan broke down was that it was ahead of its time - specifically the communications technology and logistical capacity of the Germans was incapable of co-ordinating an advance on this scale and keeping it supplied.

The second reason the same outcome would likely have happened related to the speed of the Russian mobilisation - the Tsar got his act together a lot quicker than the Germans assumed he would, meaing the plan was based on a faulty assumptions.

The French didn't need to defeat the Germans in the same way they needed to defeat the French - the French just needed to keep the German forces engaged.

BlaasForRafa

Jawgap wrote: »

Probably not much of a different outcome - one of the main reasons the plan broke down was that it was ahead of its time - specifically the communications technology and logistical capacity of the Germans was incapable of co-ordinating an advance on this scale and keeping it supplied.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I think it could have been possible for the Germans to beat the French without the British there to stiffen French resolve. I'm no expert on the Franco-Prussian war but the Germans did beat the French fairly comprehensively and that was 40 odd years before when communications and logistics was more primitive.

The second reason the same outcome would likely have happened related to the speed of the Russian mobilisation - the Tsar got his act together a lot quicker than the Germans assumed he would, meaing the plan was based on a faulty assumptions.

Again, even though the russians surprised the germans and outnumbered them greatly on the east prussian border, they were soundly beaten at the Battle of Tannenberg and the Battle of the Masurian Lakes. Superior german leadership and movement were able to beat the russians in battle.

The French didn't need to defeat the Germans in the same way they needed to defeat the French - the French just needed to keep the German forces engaged.

It is possible that the Russian distractions gave the French enough time to halt the germans in the west but I think that it is also possible that without the BEF to slow the Germans at Mons, the French wouldn't have had the time to form their forces to take on the germans at the battle of the marne.

Jawgap

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I think it could have been possible for the Germans to beat the French without the British there to stiffen French resolve. I'm no expert on the Franco-Prussian war but the Germans did beat the French fairly comprehensively and that was 40 odd years before when communications and logistics was more primitive.



Again, even though the russians surprised the germans and outnumbered them greatly on the east prussian border, they were soundly beaten at the Battle of Tannenberg and the Battle of the Masurian Lakes. Superior german leadership and movement were able to beat the russians in battle.



It is possible that the Russian distractions gave the French enough time to halt the germans in the west but I think that it is also possible that without the BEF to slow the Germans at Mons, the French wouldn't have had the time to form their forces to take on the germans at the battle of the marne.

That's true the Prussians did win the Franco-Prussian War (the last war they won although they did win a few battles in the interim) but that was way different to the Schlieffen Plan.

By 1870, Von Moltke had already appreciated the value of railways and they were well incorporated into his planning. He had also developed the first recognisable modern staff system which also incorporated a railway planning section. Finally, he and his staff used French railway maps to work out possible French responses to an invasion from Prussia.

They figured out that the French using two rail lines would be forced to concentrate their forces in two basic areas, around Metz and Strasbourg. However, the Prussians had six rail lines feeding into that area so were able to concentrate quicker. They also had military timetables ready to implement and the General Staff's Railway Department maintained close liaison with its civilian counterpart.

In their 1870 offensive the Prussians concentrated and attacked - in 1914 they wheeled hoping to push the French around and on to their fortresses on the Swiss frontier - the problem was the further west you went the less dense the rail network was, which made logistics problematic and made it impossible to move troops at speed and in the numbers required- they encountered a similar problem when they besieged Paris in 1870. The availability of single rail line up to Paris is one reason why the siege in 1870 dragged on.

In the Schlieffen Plan the right wing needed to move both at speed, with mass and in a co-ordinated fashion for the plan to work - that type of movement was very difficult to control with the comms available.

Finally, to be fair to von Schlieffen, the plan that was implemented while bearing his name was modified in a number of limited but significant ways by the Young Moltke - for example he changed the proportion of forces between the right and left (defensive) wing from 7:1 to 3:1

Elmer Blooker

It shouldn't be forgotten that the Belgians put up an unexpected resistance to the German invasion in 1914 and they paid dearly for it.
I don't think the Germans could have defeated the French because the terrible toll taken by machine guns made cavalry obsolete and led to the inevitable stalemate of trench warfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium#War_crimes

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If the French has surrendered and the Germans taken control of their navy, they would have become the dominant sea power and most likely expanded the conflict wider to increase the size of their empire.

Maybe.

The French surrendered in WWII and the Germans didn't get their navy.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

they were soundly beaten at the Battle of Tannenberg and the Battle of the Masurian Lakes. Superior german leadership and movement were able to beat the russians in battle.

There was also the use of radio interception , the Russians weren't using codes.

Snickers Man

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The French surrendered in WWII and the Germans didn't get their navy.

Because the British destroyed it. In much the same way as the Germans in WWII destroyed Italian forces in Greece after Mussolini was deposed and Italy dropped out of that war.

What if Corelli's Mandolin had been set in Mers el Kebir and entitled something like Captain Dupont's Dulcimer, or something like that?

Just saying.

Elmer Blooker

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It is possible that the Russian distractions gave the French enough time to halt the germans in the west but I think that it is also possible that without the BEF to slow the Germans at Mons, the French wouldn't have had the time to form their forces to take on the germans at the battle of the marne.

I saw a documentary about Mons a few years ago. The BEF may have been a tiny force compared to the Germans but they were first class professional soldiers compared to the German conscripts. This documentary described how the Germans thought they were facing machine guns when in fact it was the deadly accurate rifle fire of the BEF.

who the fug

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Again, even though the russians surprised the germans and outnumbered them greatly on the east prussian border, they were soundly beaten at the Battle of Tannenberg and the Battle of the Masurian Lakes. Superior german leadership and movement were able to beat the russians in battle.

Am rereading the Guns of August again, and Tannenberg seems to a have been won inspite of the German Leadership .

Max Hoffmann showing people around afterwards

There is were Hindenburg slept on the eve of battle
There is were Hindenburg slept after the battle
There is were Hindenburg slept during the battle

Barbara Tuchman the author is equally disparaging about Ludendorff