If Germany doesnt start at war with Belgium ...

[sol_invictus]

Indeed, Molke's idiotic deviation from the initial strategy of a decisive right hook and changing to an attempted double envelopement by launching large German forces against the French right as well as left, spread the Germans to thinly. A lack of concentration of force and weak leadership at the top ruined German chances. Joffre simply out-fought Molke.

[anarchyintheuk]

The Germans had a hard enough time supplying Kluck and von Bulow as is. How many additional troops could have been supported?

[Beyer160]

ORIGINAL: Berkut
I don't think Britain would have sat on the sidelines for too long absent the invasion of Belgium, they would have still entered the war, and probably sooner rather than later - they had made some promises to France after all. But I think that participation would have been considerably less enthisiastic, and with a longer ramp up time to full commitment.

Indeed, the first British cavalry deployed to France had no idea which side of the war they were on even after they landed, and didn't particularly care one way or the other.

[Beyer160]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

The Germans had a hard enough time supplying Kluck and von Bulow as is.

I think this gets at the real reason for the German failure in 1914.

[sol_invictus]

True, the Germans had difficulty supplying the right flank, but even the inclusion of the two Corps that were pointlessly withdrawn from the armies on the right and sent east would have had a major impact. German armies were able to forage, to a certain degree, in order to supplement their stretched supply lines. They were in a very fertile region at harvest time.

It was also imperative to draw the French armies forward into Germany. The French Plan 17 therefore attempted exactly what Schlieffen wanted the French to do. Joffre was able to keep control of the French Armies and was flexible enough to alter strategy when necessary, while Molke lost control and was indecisive. I admit though, even if Schlieffen were still alive and pursued his strategy as intended, there was no guarantee of success.

[Berkut]

Pointlessly withdrawn???

Uhhh, no.

[sol_invictus]

I would say that the fact that the Corps were withdraw in a moment of panic after Gumbinen, only to arrive after the battle of Tannenburg, therefore contributing to neither effort east or west, was pointless. I realize all this Monday morning quaterbacking is very simple after the fact, but Molke was simply very indecisive and prone to panic.

[SMK-at-work]

Yes but if the British had not ben there he would not have had to panic - the German line would have outflanked the French and rolled them up.
 
It might not be 1940, but IIRC the rate of advance from the Belgian border to the Marne was actually faster in 1914 than in 1940 by a fraction of a kilometer per day (I read it many years ago - no doubt someone can do the math?)

[Bossy573]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

You have to figure the Huns roll to an easy victory without Britain in the picture.

A couple of British divisions were not the reason for Germany being unable to gain victory in 1914. The next year was one of staggering unpreparedness, so until 1916, France was not in a dramatically different position to having no help on the west. Perhaps there would have been less impetus to attack, and the reverse for Germany, leading to a different pattern of casualties.

Whether France and Russia could hold on and force peace is another matter, but assuming an easy German victory ignores there complete lack of success on the offensive in the west, outside a few short months in 1914.

Solid point. Perhaps the offensive in 1914 would have failed but I can't see how France is able to sustain itself on the West Front without the dramatic increase in British manpower. Even if France makes it out of 1914 undefeated, it would only be a matter of time until the Germans finally broke through and won.

I believe it was the BEF plunging into the gap in the German armies on the Marne that sealed the deal however. Without that effort, perhaps the Germans do carry the day.

[Beyer160]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Yes but if the British had not ben there he would not have had to panic - the German line would have outflanked the French and rolled them up.

Maybe, maybe not- the French would have presumably deployed differently to make up for the "missing" BEF in the north- I can't believe Joffre would have left his flank open after he knew the Germans were coming through Belgium.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
It might not be 1940, but IIRC the rate of advance from the Belgian border to the Marne was actually faster in 1914 than in 1940 by a fraction of a kilometer per day (I read it many years ago - no doubt someone can do the math?)

In 1914 von Kleist didn't make Rommel and Guderian wait for the rest of the army to catch up with them!

[sol_invictus]

I am afraid that Molke was prone to panic no matter what the situation.[X(] Joffre was the exact opposite and richly deserves credit for the Marne victory. The less said about Plan 17 the better.

[SMK-at-work]

Maybe, maybe not- the French would have presumably deployed differently to make up for the "missing" BEF in the north- I can't believe Joffre would have left his flank open after he knew the Germans were coming through Belgium.

You can't deploy troops you don't have!!  the left flank of the French army was hanging in mid-france - there was a small operational Group D'Amade between Paris and hte channel, but that's it.  Take out the BEF and the French armies on the left have to cover and extra 20 miles of front with no extra troops - they were thin enough on the ground as it was!!

Oh and of course without the British Antwerp falls a bit faster, so the German troops up there get released sooner and decisively win the race to the sea even if they are stopped....

[Beyer160]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
You can't deploy troops you don't have!!

They did have them, on July 31. If Britian hadn't entered the war, the French wouldn't have just left a gap in the line. Given the scale of French mobilization, six divisions would have been easy to replace. Don't forget, Plan XVII also called for the northern wing to attack into Germany, when the opportunity presented itself.

After that, I think Plan XVII had the French army swimming to Antarctica and building a stairway to the moon out of toothpicks, too.

[SMK-at-work]

so where were they then, if they did have them?? on july 31 the French didn't know that the British would be on their side.....

the facts are that the BEF allowed the French line to roughly equal the length of the German one - without it the French would have been outflanked by the actual German attack as it happened and the Actual French defence as it happened.  Even then it was touch and go and the Germans could still have prevailed if not for their cautious frame of mind.

take out that "miniscule" little force and the world changes......

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

"A couple of British Divisions" = 6....small, but not insignificant - they held an important part of the line, and in GoA the 2 British Corps will do teh same if the Belgians are invaded - you'll be damned glad they're there!

4 divisions plus cavalry, led by a vain incompetent who, had he commanded lesser men, would have lost the lot. The French put 5 armies into the field ~65 divisions plus cavalry and reserve. Puts the BEF into perspective.

I'm sure the French were glad they were there, and the BEF punched above their weight, but assuming that France would have been incapable of defending itself (as the poster I responded to assumed) is a product of either a bizarre inflation of what the BEF meant, or the tired old inaccurate and unfunny slurs against French backbone.

Take the BEF out of this map - http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView/worldwari_maps_map08_largerview.htm and there's an awfully large hole between the French 5th and 6th armies into which Kluck's 1st army is heading - the Germans would have been in a great position to roll up the French line.....

True, though I assume the French would have thinned the line, abandoned their opening offensive in Alsace, been able to hold on and still counter attack on the Marne (BEF contributed 5 divisions, several seriously understrength after Mons, plus cavalry, out of a total of 49 allied divisions.)

Being outnumbered by Germany might have pervesely worked out better for France in the short term: they may have avoided costly and embarassing failures caused by the political demand to be on the offensive during 1915. Long term is probably a German victory, but by no means as assured or inevitable as was claimed.

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

"A couple of British Divisions" = 6....small, but not insignificant - they held an important part of the line, and in GoA the 2 British Corps will do teh same if the Belgians are invaded - you'll be damned glad they're there!

4 divisions plus cavalry, led by a vain incompetent who, had he commanded lesser men, would have lost the lot. The French put 5 armies into the field ~65 divisions plus cavalry and reserve. Puts the BEF into perspective.

I'm sure the French were glad they were there, and the BEF punched above their weight, but assuming that France would have been incapable of defending itself (as the poster I responded to assumed) is a product of either a bizarre inflation of what the BEF meant, or the tired old inaccurate and unfunny slurs against French backbone.

Take the BEF out of this map - http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView/worldwari_maps_map08_largerview.htm and there's an awfully large hole between the French 5th and 6th armies into which Kluck's 1st army is heading - the Germans would have been in a great position to roll up the French line.....

True, though I assume the French would have thinned the line, abandoned their opening offensive in Alsace, been able to hold on and still counter attack on the Marne (BEF contributed 5 divisions, several seriously understrength after Mons, plus cavalry, out of a total of 49 allied divisions.)

Being outnumbered by Germany might have pervesely worked out better for France in the short term: they may have avoided costly and embarassing failures caused by the political demand to be on the offensive during 1915. Long term is probably a German victory, but by no means as assured or inevitable as was claimed.

Good arguments, but I am not so sure the Frogs...er....French would have given up on their offensive doctrine even then. It was too ingrained into their entire officer corps. The result without British participation I cannot speculate, but I do know it would have been bloody.

[SMK-at-work]

I'm sure the French were glad they were there, and the BEF punched above their weight, but assuming that France would have been incapable of defending itself (as the poster I responded to assumed) is a product of either a bizarre inflation of what the BEF meant, or the tired old inaccurate and unfunny slurs against French backbone

 
Bollocks - I did not say they were incapable of defending themselves!![:@][:@]  they would have been defeated, but that's another thing entirely - your paraphrasing sucks.[:'(]
 
However their prewar planning ASSUMED the Germans would not go through Belgium - so there is no scenario in which they abandon plan XVII - there was no plan for taking troops from the frontiers and extending the line south of Belgium at all.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Bollocks - I did not say they were incapable of defending themselves!![:@][:@] they would have been defeated, but that's another thing entirely - your paraphrasing sucks.[:'(]

You're completely confused. I originally responded to another poster who said

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

You have to figure the Huns roll to an easy victory without Britain in the picture.

The same poster I referred to in replying to you, even pointing out that it wasn't you who made the original statement.

Maybe cut back on the indignant outrage and scale up the reading a bit more?

[iamspamus]

Yes. Pointlessly withdrawn. It was a knee jerk reaction to Russian entry into E Prussia the "Junker heartland". They had no effect pree Tannenburg, by which time the Russians were reeling back. If they were the difference between victory in the East (definitely debatable) or at least a better position and the fun of riding the trains to the East, it was a poor decision.

Jason

ORIGINAL: Berkut

Pointlessly withdrawn???

Uhhh, no.