Gott Strafe England

[BDV]

Unlike originally expected, WWI became, much in the vein of American War of Secession, a struggle decided by political-economic factors, rather than military brilliance.

In this vein, what would have been the developments had Germany decided, following the failure of the initial warplan, to concentrate all its Western Front attacks against the British forces and adopt a defensive posture against the French forces. It was not until the second half of 1918 that french developed operational capabilities enabling them to defeat german forces consistently. It is unlikely that such departure from the historical actions would lead to German loss of war anytime before 1918.

OTOH, would such bleeding of the Empyr bring about a British social and political crisis that would lead to a more favourable outcome of war for the German Reich?

[Baltasar]

When exactly would the Germans attack the British? The Germans offensives in the west were limited to Verdun once the front had settled down.

[Kingfish]

A more relevant question: with the Germans concentrating on the British, wouldn't the French realize greater success with their offensive efforts?

[Tim Smith]

Situation: Germans attacking the British, French doing nothing.

Option 1: BEF, following heavy losses, shortens its front line. French Army takes over the section evacuated by the British.

Option 2: Lloyd George says to the French: "Either you Frenchies get off your arses and attack the Boche, or I'll pull the BEF out of Flanders!" French government panics at the very idea of a British withdrawal, and orders its army to attack the Germans to take pressure off the British, regardless of consequences.

[BDV]

When exactly would the Germans attack the British? The Germans offensives in the west were limited to Verdun once the front had settled down.

Of course, post-1914 there is little reason for the Germans to attack in the West, at all (the desirability of German western move in 1914 was its own epic thread). Pushing Russia around, helping KuK deal with Italy, pacifying the Balkans, and focusing on methods to run the Entente blockade should suffice.

There were some small and one large german operation against the British. The largest 1915 German West Front attack was the Ypres.

However, should there be itching for West Front action, I think British rather than French are the more 'appealing' target. First, French are very effective at bleeding themselves, amply demonstrated during the Battle of the Frontiers, the 1915 Champaigne attacks, and the 1917 offensive actions. Second, British are building a land army from ground up, while French already have one established, so it's a target easier to tackle. Letting this threat develop without great challenge allowed Britain to play key role in breaking the German defensive line in 1918. Destroying the British forces is a much easier task than destroying the French. Third, politically the french already took in the setbacks of 1914 and survived. How will the British Empyr deal with the destruction of British conscript armies?

Fourth, (least critical, I'd say) pushing back the British creates the possibility for shortening the West Front and decreasing the cost of defending it.

French government panics at the very idea of a British withdrawal, and orders its army to attack the Germans to take pressure off the British, regardless of consequences.

And THAT (french attacks) did not work well at all anyway before mid-1918. That is the key point of my ATL proposal.

[Terry Duncan]

I would say such attacks are possible, but the British forces are such a small area of the front that gains will be limited, and possibly even handed to the French to allow the BEF to build up its strength again. It might have a political significance that is hard to gauge, but it is unlikely it would cause a major change in the British attitude, and the French will be only too happy to see others having to do the fighting for them.