World War I Strategy

[scout1067]

Should Germany have held in the West and struck in the East in 1914?  This is a question i have been pondering for a while as I think about the opening months of the war.  I think if the Germans had done so they could have easily knocked Russia out of the war in 1914 and history would look extremely different.

[Wally]

I agree... merely holding against a French mobilization would have allowed them to put more into the eastern front and the results could have been far different in the long run. England would have been less prompt in responding since france wopuld have (in this case) been seen by many as the agressor.

[Smardz]

May I ask what forces do You intend to put against France in this scenario?
French plan 17 was perfectly suited for offensive operation against Germany so You would have to put a lot of troops to defend Alsace et Lorraine against French.

[Wally]

Something of a 'blue sky" answer on my part but seems likely that less would have been req'd than the end run through the Low Countries"... given that the Germans had seven field armies in the west at the time... could have held the French.

So too, the French didn't fare too well at the Battle of Mulhouse: 45K French (7th Corps + a reserve brigade and the 8th Cav Div) against 30K Germans XIV and XV Corps). This was their push into Alsace / Lorraine. Had they not had to contend with the "end run" they might have committed more troops and your scenerio could have materialized.

Tough to say....

[Smardz]

I confess this forum really helps me to keep my English in use I'd be glad for your corrections.

As we know German point was to achieve a victory in 6 weeks. Everyone in Berlin assumed that beating Russia in 6 weeks is impossible but also assumed that Russian armies were unable attack Germany within first few weeks of war.
In order to change the strategy they would have to change the way of thinking.

[scout1067]

May I ask what forces do You intend to put against France in this scenario?
French plan 17 was perfectly suited for offensive operation against Germany so You would have to put a lot of troops to defend Alsace et Lorraine against French.

Given what happened when the French lunged into Alsace-Lorraine I would say the Germans could have easily left only two armies in the west and attacked in the east with six armies and the French still would have got nowhere. 

The Germans could have gotten away without violating any neutral country at the outset and this would have eliminated England's flimsy excuse for entering the war as well.  Don't get me wrong, I think England would have joined on France's side anyway.  The English would have had a much harder PR battle getting the English people to accept involvement in the war especially once the brutality of the fighting became known.

One of the reasons Germany went after France first is because they thought they could knock France out of the war faster.  Hindsight has shown that they would have been better off going after the Russians, who were a hollow force anyway despite their huge size.  The Russians only looked good when they were fighting the Austrians who were riven by ethnic disputes and rivalries to begin with.

[Chip Sloop]

As with Napolean, Hitler, and after the reverses of the Gorlice-Tarnow battle in 1915, the Russias can and would trade space for time.   Had the Germans not strengthened the forces in Alsace-Lorraine at the expense of the right wing, they might still have beaten France in 6 weeks.   The Germans also sent 2 corps ( 4 divisions ) to the east that did not arrive in time for Tannenberg but reduced the right wing further.