Early end to the Great war?

[JodelDiplom]

Look at the people who were running France in 1914 and compare them to the people who ran it in 1940. Apathy was simply not Clemenceau's style; this was a man who liked to duel people for fun and insisted on being buried facing Germany just to spite the bastards.

The main reason why the French political and military class were so apathetic in 1940 was because they were the generation who fought in the Great War. They were the generation who grew up believing the nationalistic myths that France was a great nation with a great military only to see that great nation bombed and gassed into submission by German artillery and that great army massacred in the meat-grinders of Verdun, Ypres and the Somme. They had seen millions of their comrades die in a long and bloody war whereas their grandfathers only saw thousands die in a short offensive one. Their entire world had been turned upside down. It takes more than simply losing your capital in a series of wars that you only read about in books to cause that kind of existential crisis on a mass scale. It takes something like the Great War.

Not to mention that even in 1940, enough people still clung on to those myths to make the Free French a thing. Imagine how many millions more would have still done so if the Great War had only lasted a few months?

Yeah the French of 1914 definitely were no pushovers. They were as gung-ho and aggressive as you can be in an industrial society. Consider that after the Prussians beat them in 1871 they were so angry they had to go and conquer half of Africa just to vent steam. The place wasn't worth a damn and the natives were a bother and the heat was terrible, but they were so angry they went and trekked all the way from Dakar to Sudan and conquered every place in between like it was no thing. And even picked a fight with the british in Sudan because they wouldn't let them conquer their way to the red sea and part the waters just by the force of their anger. Those guys were aggro as hell and as jingo as they come.

 

[Vlad_Dracul1989]

Therefore, destruction of Paris in vicious fights over every building and Germans angry beyond imagination, totally demolishing everything in renewed offensives next year, which the French and British won't be able to stop.

Even in the Franco-Prussian War, they had to do all these things before French capitulation:

1. Destroy most of French military
2. Occupy 1/3 to half of entire territory
3. Capture Head of State
4. Capture and hold Paris

With French of 1914 indeed indoctrinated by the nationalist republican propaganda, completely convinced they are in the right, fighting the good fight, not only for Tricolour but also for entire progress of human civilization...

...they must be crushed much more this time. Really, really, much more. So, again, Schlieffen Plan doesn't work, because now you fight too determined (bordering insane) enemy, which will insist on the glorious and bloody last stand.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Therefore, destruction of Paris in vicious fights over every building and Germans angry beyond imagination, totally demolishing everything in renewed offensives next year, which the French and British won't be able to stop.

Even in the Franco-Prussian War, they had to do all these things before French capitulation:

1. Destroy most of French military
2. Occupy 1/3 to half of entire territory
3. Capture Head of State
4. Capture and hold Paris

With French of 1914 indeed indoctrinated by the nationalist republican propaganda, completely convinced they are in the right, fighting the good fight, not only for Tricolour but also for entire progress of human civilization...

...they must crushed much more this time. Really, really, much more. So, again, Schlieffen Plan doesn't work, because now you fight too determined (bordering insane) enemy, which will insist on the glorious and bloody last stand.

Well even with nationalist fanaticism France is still a capitalist society and class struggle can only be suppressed for so long. The French had their close brush with red revolution in 1871 and the ruling classes didn't like it one bit. If WW1 gets too bad, class struggle might pop up again. The Germans might even encourage it. Forcing the French ruling elites to choose between their property and their honor might make them choose property. Although with no French Lenin to smuggle into Paris in a sealed rail car I don't really see how that could happen.

 

[Vlad_Dracul1989]

Political leaders in France faced clear and close risk of assassination and lynching, when they were deemed as cowards or traitors. Both right and left had numerous extremists and had supporters in high echelons of the French military.

Wouldn't they rather hold for another year what's left of France behind Seine and Vosges, hoping for greater British support and Russian victory in the East?
With vicious last stand somewhere in the Massif Central?

 

[Gurkhal]

I think I once read that the rapid Russian advance caused Moltke to withdraw substantial forces from the west, but which did not arrive at the east in time to participate at Tannenberg. No idea if that is true.

Also, another reason for the failure for the German failure in 1914 was that they held onto Alsace-Lorraine for political reasons. IIRC, the elder Moltke was quite willing to have the French army overrun that area, since it would have placed the attacking French armies further away from Paris when the attacking German armies arrived.

On the topic, I really see no reason why it should be unrealistic for the war to end 1914 in favor of the Entente. Both sides fielded large portions of their armies in ambitious offensives that could have backfired badly for once.

While I can't say the units moved from west to east I'm pretty certain that you're right in that the Germans did transfer troops in that direction.

Don't know about the part in Alsace-Lorraine but it wouldn't suprise me if the Germans did so.

Totally agree with you about the possibilities of an early war. The Habsburg offensives seems for examples to have failed rather badly and so if the Germans had taken a kicking in East Prussia with the Russians pressing into West Prussia then I have little problem to see the Habsburgs take an even worse beating. I think it was really fortunate for the Germans that they had such great victories in the east as otherwise they would have to contend with large numbers of Russians inside Germany itself, while at the same time having to support the Habsburg forces, thus spreading themselves out.

 

[gagenater]

Therefore, destruction of Paris in vicious fights over every building and Germans angry beyond imagination, totally demolishing everything in renewed offensives next year, which the French and British won't be able to stop.

Even in the Franco-Prussian War, they had to do all these things before French capitulation:

1. Destroy most of French military
2. Occupy 1/3 to half of entire territory
3. Capture Head of State
4. Capture and hold Paris

With French of 1914 indeed indoctrinated by the nationalist republican propaganda, completely convinced they are in the right, fighting the good fight, not only for Tricolour but also for entire progress of human civilization...

...they must be crushed much more this time. Really, really, much more. So, again, Schlieffen Plan doesn't work, because now you fight too determined (bordering insane) enemy, which will insist on the glorious and bloody last stand.

A successful Schlieffen plan gets 1,2 and 4. I will agree the French in WWI were committed to fighting to win, and fighting to the end, but at this point, do they still have the means to back that spirit up?

Even more importantly, what do the British think of this all? Will they still be dedicated to feeding units into a France that has lost the ability to properly host and use them? Or will they seek a way to negotiate their way out? The British were in it to restore Belgian neutrality, and to prevent any one power from becoming hegemonic in Europe. Are these reasons strong enough for them to be willing to endure a long, economically and militarily painful and difficult war without France on their side? The UK of World War 1 wasn't the same as the UK of WWII.

 

[Vlad_Dracul1989]

But that's still the problem. the Plan was about how to wage Second Franco-Prussian War - not World War of annihilation or attrition war to bleed the enemy. Nor it took fully to account how deadly war machines will become in next decades.

Trying to do once again the (generally) same stunt wasn't the best idea to begin with.

 

[Acheron]

Even more importantly, what do the British think of this all? Will they still be dedicated to feeding units into a France that has lost the ability to properly host and use them? Or will they seek a way to negotiate their way out? The British were in it to restore Belgian neutrality, and to prevent any one power from becoming hegemonic in Europe. Are these reasons strong enough for them to be willing to endure a long, economically and militarily painful and difficult war without France on their side? The UK of World War 1 wasn't the same as the UK of WWII.

But the logic is the same, any one nation dominating Europe will be able to build a fleet bigger than the British fleet, meaning an end to British sovereignty, best hope being to become a junior partner at the discretion of the European hegemon.

 

[Yakman]

Yeah the French of 1914 definitely were no pushovers. They were as gung-ho and aggressive as you can be in an industrial society. Consider that after the Prussians beat them in 1871 they were so angry they had to go and conquer half of Africa just to vent steam. The place wasn't worth a damn and the natives were a bother and the heat was terrible, but they were so angry they went and trekked all the way from Dakar to Sudan and conquered every place in between like it was no thing. And even picked a fight with the british in Sudan because they wouldn't let them conquer their way to the red sea and part the waters just by the force of their anger. Those guys were aggro as hell and as jingo as they come.

that's not how the french conquered africa.

it was mostly lower level officers looking for promotions making excuses for reasons to beat up the tribe on the next hill over.

eventually, you end up at Fashoda. but in the mean time, you've promoted a lot of dudes.

 

[JodelDiplom]

that's not how the french conquered africa.

it was mostly lower level officers looking for promotions making excuses for reasons to beat up the tribe on the next hill over.

eventually, you end up at Fashoda. but in the mean time, you've promoted a lot of dudes.

I was generalizing

 

[Yakman]

I was generalizing

they were all gung ho about war in Europe. in Africa, the generals in Paris kept trying to contain their captains in the Sahara.

 

[Yakman]

Therefore, destruction of Paris in vicious fights over every building and Germans angry beyond imagination, totally demolishing everything in renewed offensives next year, which the French and British won't be able to stop.

Even in the Franco-Prussian War, they had to do all these things before French capitulation:

1. Destroy most of French military
2. Occupy 1/3 to half of entire territory
3. Capture Head of State
4. Capture and hold Paris

With French of 1914 indeed indoctrinated by the nationalist republican propaganda, completely convinced they are in the right, fighting the good fight, not only for Tricolour but also for entire progress of human civilization...

...they must be crushed much more this time. Really, really, much more. So, again, Schlieffen Plan doesn't work, because now you fight too determined (bordering insane) enemy, which will insist on the glorious and bloody last stand.

Except they didn't do 4.

They besieged Paris, but they never took the city. There was a victory parade through Paris, but that was only after the new, aristocratic government, arranged the surrender.

The German Army, as impressive as it was in 1914, with all the great victories it won in East and West, even without British intervention, wasn't going to be able to take Paris as easily as the General Staff's neat plan had written it up.

They hadn't been able to do it in 1870, and they weren't going to be able to do it in 1914.

 

[gagenater]

But the logic is the same, any one nation dominating Europe will be able to build a fleet bigger than the British fleet, meaning an end to British sovereignty, best hope being to become a junior partner at the discretion of the European hegemon.

The logic is there, but as I noted, is the ability, and will to prevent it there? WWI was a slow and gradual buildup, and by mid/late war, the UK was as committed as anyone else thanks to it's sunk cost of millions of dead soldiers. In a hypothetical where there ability to influence the war is reduced to a tremendous extent rather quickly, without all those sunk costs their strategic position may change to one of slow, long term gradual economic defeat of the new hegemon of europe. The policy of 'balance' was basically the idea that the UK could always tip the scales to avoid allowing a dominant power in Europe. If this no longer seems likely to succeed, they may switch directions, just as they did (in concert with the US) in the post WWII era in the cold war, or against Napoleon in an earlier era.

 

[Vlad_Dracul1989]

Except they didn't do 4.

They besieged Paris, but they never took the city. There was a victory parade through Paris, but that was only after the new, aristocratic government, arranged the surrender.

Effectively they did. No one was gonna relief the siege and free the city, being therefore neutralized, and Prussians possesed control over Northern France. It were months already too. I don't know much much longer population was content to eat rats and cats - and how many of them were left to eat.

Besides:

On 25 January 1871, Wilhelm I overruled Moltke and ordered the field-marshal to consult with Bismarck for all future operations. Bismarck immediately ordered the city to be bombarded with large-caliber Krupp siege guns. This prompted the city's surrender on 28 January 1871. Paris sustained more damage in the 1870–1871 siege than in any other conflict.

 

[Yakman]

Effectively they did. No one was gonna relief the siege and free the city, being therefore neutralized, and Prussians possesed control over Northern France. It were months already too. I don't know much much longer population was content to eat rats and cats - and how many of them were left to eat.

Besides:

Yes, they sieged the city. They shot their big guns at it. But they did not take it.

Big difference.

 

[Vlad_Dracul1989]

You shot big guns, city surrenders.

Sounds pretty much 'taking the stuff' for me

 

[Yakman]

You shot big guns, city surrenders.

Sounds pretty much 'taking the stuff' for me

Sometimes you have to take the city. The Germans didn't do that in 1871, and they certainly weren't going to be able to do it easily in 1914.

They got away with a siege in 1871. I don't think they'd have gotten away that easily in 1914.

 

[Vlad_Dracul1989]

Sure, there's actually no reason to consider Marne a 'miracle' and make it look like final fight for fate of France, since victorious Germans still have exhausted army and French troops can retreat to the city, being the front itself, with Germany now unable to force a siege.

Nerves of French government members and it's allies are most critical for short war now.

But in 1915's renewed offensives, with everything between Le Havre and Vosges in German hands, France would have collapsed.

 

[Dinglehoff]

In 1940, the French didn't choose to fight in Paris after they were decisively defeated elsewhere. Paris was very important to them culturally and they didn't want to see it destroyed.

 

[Yakman]

Sure, there's actually no reason to consider Marne a 'miracle' and make it look like final fight for fate of France, since victorious Germans still have exhausted army and French troops can retreat to the city, being the front itself, with Germany now unable to force a siege.

pretty much.

it made for a fantastic propaganda victory - and it was truly needed when France had met little but defeat in the critical parts of the front. and by winning, France was able to prevent the German Army from getting into a position to actually threaten the city, which would have been incredibly politically and militarily challenging. Imagine if the Germans had gotten to the Marne... and been able to dig in!?

In your alternate war scenario, whatever.

But in real life, Germany was going to have to take or at least besiege Paris to win the war in 1914, and they simply weren't close to that by the time they had exhausted themselves. The Schlieffen plan was always a hoax that their general staff had foisted upon itself, with hyper-ambitious time tables, non-existent divisions springing to life, and no room for error... and even that didn't take into account the actual need to defeat not only the French army in the field, but to defeat it in Paris. And I'm not sure that was possible, after Britain entered the War, and it certainly wasn't possible in the few weeks that Schlieffen had allotted to winning the war.