Belisarius

On 4th August 1914, German armies march into Belgium in accordance to the Schlieffen Plan in an attempt to outflank the French. The Belgian army is swept aside by the German tide, as the BEF lands in France. The seemingly irresistible German tide sweeps across the border into France… to be met by the French army in pre-prepared killing zones. The French rapid-fire 75mm field guns and machine guns decimate the German attack formations, disrupting the German offensive. The French reserves and the BEF launch a counter attack that drives the Germans back into Belgium.

This is a possible outcome had the French retained their Plan XVI, devised by General Michel, instead of the Plan XVII devised by General Joffre, which caused so many French casualties in the Battles of the Frontiers and the Marne. Had Plan XVI been followed, could France and her allies have won the war in 1914? What do you think?

Nikd

Really good scenario. But please can you give us more details about the two french plans?

Belisarius

Very briefly, in 1911 the C-in-C designate of the French army, General Michel devised a strategic plan [plan XVI] based on the assumption that the Germans would seek victory over France in a future war by attacking through Belgium with the bulk of their army; outflanking the French army and threatening Paris. To counter such a move he would deploy the bulk of the French army in defensive positions on the left flank opposite Belgium. If time and circumstances permitted, the French themselves would advance across the Belgian border in a pre-emptive move. The idea was to delay and weaken the German army in the West, to allow the Russians enough time to launch an offensive against weaker German defences in the East.

The plan was rejected in favour of General Joffre’s Plan XVII that was more aggressive and called for an immediate offensive to take the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, lost by the French in 1870-1; exactly what Schlieffen expected the French to do. In 1914 the French had to re-deploy their armies to react to the German attack through Belgium, and their tactical doctrine of “all out attack” caused horrendous casualties amongst France’s best troops. General Michel was relieved of his command in favour of the more politically acceptable Joffe and the rest, as they say, is history.

Dr Realism

If you want to read a really good account of the early battles of 1914, you should read The Guns Of August. Barbara Tuchman goes into detail about what was going on on both sides. You get to read about how General Molkte broke down and cried on the first day of battle because the Kaiser tampered with his time table, as well as a rare historical battle in which the Begians inflicted some serious casualties on the Germans. I consider it to be unbiased.

Dr Realism

I think if Germany suffered a major setback in the west in early 1914, the war still would have bogged down into trench wafare, though in a different place, probably Belgium. The German Army was bigger and better than the French, so I doubt they'd be pushed back into Germany or sue for peace in 1914. I doubt the Russians would have overrun Berlin because two Russian Armies were defeated early on by one german Army anyway. I don't think Russia's performance would have been any better. With the war being fought closer to Germany, I think the High Seas Fleet would have been sent out earlier for a major engagement with the Royal Navy.

At the end of the war, the peace terms may have been more lenient because France wouldn't have suffered as much devistation to their countryside. If the High Seas Fleet had decisively defeated the Royal Navy, there may have been no need resort to indiscriminate U-Boat Warfare. Thus, maybe the US would not have intervened and there would be no Wilsonianism thus, no Poland, no break up of the Hapsburg Empire.
Maybe the Germans would attempt a landing in England or small scale raids, forcing the English out of the War.
There are just so many what ifs.

Nikd

^^ I will agree, Great Britain and France were superpowers, the French with a substantial army backed up by british troops and as proven an invicinble fleet that the germans could not counter. So even Germans managed to dig themselves deep in French territory the best that they can hoped were a recognizition of Alsaite and Lorraine and territorial benefits most in east.
It makes me impression the low realism of the French govermenent, where politics are more important then reality.
By the way the French had a word to describe the will of fight "Elan", something mysticistic that makes them believe that the ordinary French soldier is the best in the world, something like the Magic potion of Asterix.

Belisarius

Maybe, but when you consider the original 1914 Russian plan was to hold off the Germans in the North, while launching a major offensive against the Austro-Hungarians, but this was changed at the last minute in order to help the French. Had the original plans been in effect, the French would have severely damaged the German invasion of France, and the Russians could conceivably have knocked the Austrians out of the war, as they came close to doing on several occasions.

Remember, with the French on the defensive, their losses would not have been so catastrophic and there would have been no real pressure on Britain to fully enter the war so quickly. The BEF would have gained valuable experience while Kitchener’s New Armies became fully trained. Their mass deployment in 1916 or 1917 would have had the same overall effect as the Americans did in 1917-18, a new fresh reserve of manpower to draw on. There would have been no reason for America to enter the war. There would have been a real possibility of a shorter war, maybe 1914-16.

Nikd

Belisarius, i can say that you partially have right.
Maybe Kitchener's new army was a really good effort, and proved her value in the field, but Germany was to strong and had still many resources in the 3 first years of war. Russia was an empire already divided by internal problems (1905 - Potemkin) and had no infrastructure to hold a long war against Germans. So the US aid was more than necessary, not only to beak the stalemate, but more to help the Allies reduce their terrible loses in human lives.

Belisarius

Maybe, in the real war. But in this alternate scenario, the Germans initially suffer more than the French, the Russians are given enough time to fully mobilise and launch their "steamroller" against Austria-Hungary, and the British get involved much later.

Many people write off Russia, but it's still here, despite all the attempts at conquest by Poles, Swedes, French, Germans and Germans again. The country and people are far more resilient than they are given credit for.

Nikd

Sure, the Russians were, are stalward warriors. But in this scenario a fast Allied vitory could occure only if the Russians won the battle of Tannenberg, thus preventing Germans to help effective the Austrian army, and forcing them to arrange more troops to defend their homeland. But even so the German army was strong enough to hold the war for 2-3 years more.
No doubt for the quality of the "New army".