German "East First" Plan in 1914?

[ljadw]

Other points : a Schwerpunkt Ost would ruin Germany ,as Russia could not pay for the German war expenses and Germany would be forced to have a big occupation army in these territories.How would it pay this ? It was already before the war on the limits of its financial possibility .The German government had issued war loans for 100 billion of Reichsmark.Who would pay them ?

Couldn't these newly independent states have their own armies? Think of a NATO-style arrangement here--Germany might help around the edges, as the US did in real life, but most of the preparedness will have to come from these countries themselves.

France would be very pleased and if the Tsar had to leave ,Germany would be saddled in the east with a socialist/communist regime that would be a magnet for the German socialists .

A socialist regime in Russia, Germany can live with. A Communist regime in Russia, Germany cannot live with and would have to overthrow them in one way or another. Honestly, I wouldn't view the German Social Democrats as the enemy here; after all, they could be persuaded that Germany simply wants to spread civilization and German culture to Eastern Europe in order for Germany to finally have its own place in the Sun.

1 NATO was founded and funded by he US.Germany was to poor to fund its satellites .And an independent Poland would demand the return of East and West Prussia and of Silesia . .
2 Germany could not live with a socialist Russia.The truth was that if the Tsar went, the Kaiser and the Emperor of AH would disappear .A Socialist Russia would become a Communist Russia .Kerensky was replaced by Lenin .
The Tsar was overthrown in February 1917,a few months later the Kaiser was forced to promise that after the war the Prussian (3 classes ) electoral system would be replaced by a one ma/woman /one vote system,which meant the end of the rule of the monarchy and aristocracy in Prussia .In the one man/one vote elections for the Reichstag in 1912 the SDP and the Zentrum had already the majority .
Germany wanted to dominate Europe,the only way was to eliminate France ,not to eliminate Russia .
The Kaiser would be faced by the choice to become a constitutional king or to abdicate .

[Futurist]

Granted, Imperial Germany was nowhere near as anti-Semitic as the Third Reich

In WW1 the great anti-semitic power was Czarist Russia; the (relative) perceived philo-semitic power was Hapsburg Austria. The latter would have been administering perhaps half of the occupied Ashkenazi population.

But Austria-Hungary itself would have also been a German satellite state by the end of the war, no?

In any case, didn't the CPs already commit to an independent Poland in late 1916? Or is that going to change here? Because I could still see value in appeasing Polish nationalist sentiment by giving the Poles their own state.

For discussion of Jewish perceptions of the Czarist and Habsburg regimes, see Michael Neiberg's work such as this lecture on Youtube. The video summary states:

When the war began, most American Jews supported the Central Powers, but would later side with the British and French. Join WWI scholar, Michael Neiberg, as he traces the evolution of American Jewish thought from 1914 to 1917 and shows how events in Europe and the U.S. led American Jews to support America’s entry into the war.

From the presentation, a quote from a Jewish American paper that is chilling given what we know happens 20 years later:

The Jews support [Imperial] Germany because [Czarist] Russia bathes in Jewish blood.

Interestingly enough, had the CPs won WWI, there would have probably been no Holocaust later on. At the very least, Germany would not have been the one committing it. Maybe some Fascist revanchist nut would have eventually come to power in Russia and sparked a war of aggression followed by a mass murder of Eastern European Jewry, but even then, the latter part is probably unlikely, at least on anywhere near the scale of real life's Holocaust. Even a murder of, say, 300,000 Jews would be 20 times less than the number of Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust in real life, after all! Truly shocking just how brutal real life was for the Jews!

An aside: This is not the kind of alternate history I like to do, but what if post-WW1 Germany had gone in a direction similar to contemporary right-wing ideologies, which assimilate Jewishness into the ubiquitous (in my country) narrative of "Judeo-Christian" civilization. The Ashkenazm were, after all, a product of Germany (by far its best product) and they speak a language (Yiddish) closer to standard German than anything else, including what Danes and other "Aryan" peoples speak. A post-WW1 German identity politics didn't have to pick Jewish people as the outgroup - not as a matter of logic anyway. Ashkenazm arguably make the least sense as the salient outgroup. Could have been Slavs, Roma, Communists, etc. Of course it's not a matter of logic.

Oh, sure, I myself certainly view German anti-Semitism as being irrational. The Germans should have actively encouraged Jewish immigration while actively encouraging Jews to assimilate into the German body politic. And if there are certain things that some Jews do that Germans don't like, such as spreading leftism, then Germans should have opposed leftism rather than engaged in categorical hostility towards Jews as a whole. In the US right now, the alt-right dislikes the fact that some Jews support and spread leftism, but the smarter alt-righters don't hate Jews as a whole and acknowledge that there are some Jews who support their cause.

[Futurist]

Other points : a Schwerpunkt Ost would ruin Germany ,as Russia could not pay for the German war expenses and Germany would be forced to have a big occupation army in these territories.How would it pay this ? It was already before the war on the limits of its financial possibility .The German government had issued war loans for 100 billion of Reichsmark.Who would pay them ?

Couldn't these newly independent states have their own armies? Think of a NATO-style arrangement here--Germany might help around the edges, as the US did in real life, but most of the preparedness will have to come from these countries themselves.

France would be very pleased and if the Tsar had to leave ,Germany would be saddled in the east with a socialist/communist regime that would be a magnet for the German socialists .

A socialist regime in Russia, Germany can live with. A Communist regime in Russia, Germany cannot live with and would have to overthrow them in one way or another. Honestly, I wouldn't view the German Social Democrats as the enemy here; after all, they could be persuaded that Germany simply wants to spread civilization and German culture to Eastern Europe in order for Germany to finally have its own place in the Sun.

1 NATO was founded and funded by he US.Germany was to poor to fund its satellites .And an independent Poland would demand the return of East and West Prussia and of Silesia . .
2 Germany could not live with a socialist Russia.The truth was that if the Tsar went, the Kaiser and the Emperor of AH would disappear .A Socialist Russia would become a Communist Russia .Kerensky was replaced by Lenin .
The Tsar was overthrown in February 1917,a few months later the Kaiser was forced to promise that after the war the Prussian (3 classes ) electoral system would be replaced by a one ma/woman /one vote system,which meant the end of the rule of the monarchy and aristocracy in Prussia .In the one man/one vote elections for the Reichstag in 1912 the SDP and the Zentrum had already the majority .
Germany wanted to dominate Europe,the only way was to eliminate France ,not to eliminate Russia .
The Kaiser would be faced by the choice to become a constitutional king or to abdicate .

The Soviet Union wasn't too poor to fund satellite states after World War II, now was it? As for an independent Poland, the key would be that pragmatists would be in charge of it who would be content with Belarus as a consolation prize for not getting what they want in the West.

A socialist Russia won't have to be replaced by a Communist Russia if WWI still won't be ongoing.

Was the one man, one vote system really catastrophic for Germany? I mean, so long as the German Kaiser still gets to control Germany's foreign policy, it should all be good, right?

What's wrong with being a constitutional king? Heck, if anything, Germany could experience an eventual return to autocracy in the event of some severe crisis, such as the Great Depression, as real life indeed showed us.

[ljadw]

1 There were no Poles in Belarus, but a lot of Poles in East and West Prussia and Silesia .
2 The USSR did not fund its satellites, it exploited them . Besides it needed them and they were forced to station 500000 troops in the satellites .
3 Germany, AH and Russia were all autocratic and multinational regimes, but endangered by the pressure of democratization .The ''ancien regime '' in Germany had already lost the Reichstag where there was a majority of Zentrum and SPD .If the existing electoral law in Prussia was replaced, the rule of the Junkers was over .
And the Kaiser did not want to become a constitutional monarch .A constitutional monarch can not control foreign policy . He is only a puppet of the politicians .
If Russia became a republic, Germany and AH would follow .That'w why the fratricide war between Germany, AH and Russia was suicidal .
Aufmarschanweisung Ost was a suicide .If Germany won, it would be broken (Russia could not pay for the war as France did in 1871 ) and France would be stronger .If Russia won,it would be broken and be saddled up with a majority of hostile Slavs ,who would be independent and who would incite the non Russian minorities in Russia ( 50 % of the population )to become independent .
The satellites were a poisoned gift for the Soviets : they had to station 500000 men,but after 10 years they had lost most of their power in Eastern Europe .
It would have been the same for Imperial Russia and Imperial Germany .
And, the break-up of Imperial Russia would kill the German economy: Imperial Russia was Germany's principal trade partner : 38 % of German import/export in 1913 .

[Futurist]

1 There were no Poles in Belarus, but a lot of Poles in East and West Prussia and Silesia .
2 The USSR did not fund its satellites, it exploited them . Besides it needed them and they were forced to station 500000 troops in the satellites .
3 Germany, AH and Russia were all autocratic and multinational regimes, but endangered by the pressure of democratization .The ''ancien regime '' in Germany had already lost the Reichstag where there was a majority of Zentrum and SPD .If the existing electoral law in Prussia was replaced, the rule of the Junkers was over .
And the Kaiser did not want to become a constitutional monarch .A constitutional monarch can not control foreign policy . He is only a puppet of the politicians .
If Russia became a republic, Germany and AH would follow .That'w why the fratricide war between Germany, AH and Russia was suicidal .
Aufmarschanweisung Ost was a suicide .If Germany won, it would be broken (Russia could not pay for the war as France did in 1871 ) and France would be stronger .If Russia won,it would be broken and be saddled up with a majority of hostile Slavs ,who would be independent and who would incite the non Russian minorities in Russia ( 50 % of the population )to become independent .
The satellites were a poisoned gift for the Soviets : they had to station 500000 men,but after 10 years they had lost most of their power in Eastern Europe .
It would have been the same for Imperial Russia and Imperial Germany .
And, the break-up of Imperial Russia would kill the German economy: Imperial Russia was Germany's principal trade partner : 38 % of German import/export in 1913 .

1. There actually were some Poles in western Belarus:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 019%29.png



And in any case, that's the whole purpose of living space: To create Polish communities where there previously were none (eastern and central Belarus), except in this case, without the Poles ever actually displacing any locals.

2. And Germany can't do the same thing?

3. To be honest, I'd be quite content with even losing control over Germany's foreign policy if I would have been able to secure a ring of friendly satellite states for Germany in Eastern Europe.

As for trade, Germany's new Eastern European satellite states can become large trading partners for it after Russia's defeat. So, the loss of trade with Russia will not necessarily be crucial for Germany.

[ljadw]

In the HTL there 7 armies in the west and one in the East .If France was defeated ,these 7 armies could NOT go to the East,most of them would remain tied in the West ,making victory in the East impossible .
If in the ATL there were 7 armies in the East and 1 in the West,these 7 armies would remain tied in the East for years, as a short victorious campaign in the East was out of the question .Such a campaign was only possible in the West,that's why the Schwerpunkt was in the West .
The Kaiser told his soldiers : you will be back home before the Winter,meaning that Russia would cease fighting after the defeat of France .And Germany could not demand territorial changes in the East,as it had already to many Slavs .A short war in the East would save Germany from a long and costly war which could not be won .

[Futurist]

In the HTL there 7 armies in the west and one in the East .If France was defeated ,these 7 armies could NOT go to the East,most of them would remain tied in the West ,making victory in the East impossible .
If in the ATL there were 7 armies in the East and 1 in the West,these 7 armies would remain tied in the East for years, as a short victorious campaign in the East was out of the question .Such a campaign was only possible in the West,that's why the Schwerpunkt was in the West .
The Kaiser told his soldiers : you will be back home before the Winter,meaning that Russia would cease fighting after the defeat of France .And Germany could not demand territorial changes in the East,as it had already to many Slavs .A short war in the East would save Germany from a long and costly war which could not be won .

Again, satellite states != direct annexation. And how do you know that Germany could not win a long war in the East?

[PunctuationHorror]

[...]
If Russia became a republic, Germany and AH would follow .That'w why the fratricide war between Germany, AH and Russia was suicidal .
Aufmarschanweisung Ost was a suicide .If Germany won, it would be broken (Russia could not pay for the war as France did in 1871 ) and France would be stronger .If Russia won,it would be broken and be saddled up with a majority of hostile Slavs ,who would be independent and who would incite the non Russian minorities in Russia ( 50 % of the population )to become independent .
The satellites were a poisoned gift for the Soviets : they had to station 500000 men,but after 10 years they had lost most of their power in Eastern Europe .
It would have been the same for Imperial Russia and Imperial Germany .
And, the break-up of Imperial Russia would kill the German economy: Imperial Russia was Germany's principal trade partner : 38 % of German import/export in 1913 .

Tsarist Russia was inevitably broken, the war accelerated its fate. As you point out - neither win nor defeat would save it. Austria-Hungary had similar problems but in Imperial Russia things were farer advanced.
Probably, Germany would try to force reparations on Russia or its sucession states. If not in cash/gold then there would be recompensation in materials, naturals etc.

And, the break-up of Imperial Russia would kill the German economy: Imperial Russia was Germany's principal trade partner : 38 % of German import/export in 1913 .

I guess the trade would be independent from the existence of Imperial Russia as its fragments/sucession states would trade with Germany, Stabilization and switching would take some time but sucession states still have the same geography, so they would resume trading with Germany. WW1 showed that Germany could manage ~3 years without Russian trade. This time would be available - at least.

I imagine something like this:
1914: Germany stays on the defence along the French border and does not attack Belgium. Hence, UK stays neutral. German troops get redeployed to the East. Austria-Hungary does not suffer that much in Galicia and Warsaw and Western Poland comes under German occupation. A-H manages to contain Serbia.
1915: Italy joins war against AH and Germany. The French Border is still a costly stalemate. Same in Poland where a frontline along Bialystok, Brest, Lviv is reached (Or Warsaw, Lublin, Przemysl if they are not so lucky). Germany sends considerable amounts of troops in the Alps and/or to Serbia to help AH.
1916: Offensive in Italy: Veneto is taken in an early Caporetto and the breach is opened well into Emilia-Romagna and Lombardy. Italy sues for peace. There is still a costly stalemate on German Westfront and Eastfront.
1917: ???
Possiblities for ATL1917:
- Without UK, France may come to terms. For two and a half years they were running their heads in on Metz/Elsass and suffered 1,000,000 casualities. Morale is low like in OTL.
- Russia may collapse like in OTL. Germany can't occupy the whole territory. They annex/occupy Lithuania and some Baltic towns. Maybe they help to establish Baltic state/states, Belarus, Ukraine while trying to make them dependent.
- Maybe Ottoman Empire joins war and Imperial Britain finally finds a reason to get themselves involved. They would try to get Georgia, Armenia etc. Maybe German naval operations/submarine war against France and Italy pisses them off.
- US may join or may stay aside. Depends on British Empire and if Germany or France got more US loans for goods and war material.

[Futurist]

[...]
If Russia became a republic, Germany and AH would follow .That'w why the fratricide war between Germany, AH and Russia was suicidal .
Aufmarschanweisung Ost was a suicide .If Germany won, it would be broken (Russia could not pay for the war as France did in 1871 ) and France would be stronger .If Russia won,it would be broken and be saddled up with a majority of hostile Slavs ,who would be independent and who would incite the non Russian minorities in Russia ( 50 % of the population )to become independent .
The satellites were a poisoned gift for the Soviets : they had to station 500000 men,but after 10 years they had lost most of their power in Eastern Europe .
It would have been the same for Imperial Russia and Imperial Germany .
And, the break-up of Imperial Russia would kill the German economy: Imperial Russia was Germany's principal trade partner : 38 % of German import/export in 1913 .

Tsarist Russia was inevitably broken, the war accelerated its fate. As you point out - neither win nor defeat would save it. Austria-Hungary had similar problems but in Imperial Russia things were farer advanced.
Probably, Germany would try to force reparations on Russia or its sucession states. If not in cash/gold then there would be recompensation in materials, naturals etc.

Best to have good economic ties rather than reparations, no?

And, the break-up of Imperial Russia would kill the German economy: Imperial Russia was Germany's principal trade partner : 38 % of German import/export in 1913 .

I guess the trade would be independent from the existence of Imperial Russia as its fragments/sucession states would trade with Germany, Stabilization and switching would take some time but sucession states still have the same geography, so they would resume trading with Germany. WW1 showed that Germany could manage ~3 years without Russian trade. This time would be available - at least.

Yep, Germany would get the most industrialized regions of the Russian Empire as its satellites.

I imagine something like this:
1914: Germany stays on the defence along the French border and does not attack Belgium. Hence, UK stays neutral. German troops get redeployed to the East. Austria-Hungary does not suffer that much in Galicia and Warsaw and Western Poland comes under German occupation. A-H manages to contain Serbia.

I'm unsure if Britain would have permanently remained neutral in such a scenario, though the much larger mauling that France is going to get at the Battle of the Frontiers is not going to make entering the war a more attractive option for the British, that's for sure.

1915: Italy joins war against AH and Germany. The French Border is still a costly stalemate. Same in Poland where a frontline along Bialystok, Brest, Lviv is reached (Or Warsaw, Lublin, Przemysl if they are not so lucky). Germany sends considerable amounts of troops in the Alps and/or to Serbia to help AH.
1916: Offensive in Italy: Veneto is taken in an early Caporetto and the breach is opened well into Emilia-Romagna and Lombardy. Italy sues for peace. There is still a costly stalemate on German Westfront and Eastfront.

If Britain is already in the war, then Italy might not sue for peace unless Rome and/or France falls.

1917: ???
Possiblities for ATL1917:
- Without UK, France may come to terms. For two and a half years they were running their heads in on Metz/Elsass and suffered 1,000,000 casualities. Morale is low like in OTL.

Maybe the French try invading Germany through Belgium eventually? Of course, this is likely to severely strain their relations with the Brits.

- Russia may collapse like in OTL. Germany can't occupy the whole territory. They annex/occupy Lithuania and some Baltic towns. Maybe they help to establish Baltic state/states, Belarus, Ukraine while trying to make them dependent.

Yep.

- Maybe Ottoman Empire joins war and Imperial Britain finally finds a reason to get themselves involved. They would try to get Georgia, Armenia etc. Maybe German naval operations/submarine war against France and Italy pisses them off.
- US may join or may stay aside. Depends on British Empire and if Germany or France got more US loans for goods and war material.

Starting USW against the US was a stupid move, though whether Germany will actually be smart enough to see this in this TL is an open question.

[glenn239]

Tsarist Russia was inevitably broken, the war accelerated its fate. As you point out - neither win nor defeat would save it. Austria-Hungary had similar problems but in Imperial Russia things were farer advanced.

An old (but good) source on Russia in WW1 is Stone's The Eastern Front. The gist of it is that Tzarist Russia wasn't not inevitably broken, but made any number of errors that brought on its own demise. I think that you might be overstating the actual vulnerability of the old empire to revolution in the case of no war, or even in the case of a war where the Tzarist regime remained more on the defensive.

I imagine something like this:
1914: Germany stays on the defence along the French border and does not attack Belgium. Hence, UK stays neutral. German troops get redeployed to the East. Austria-Hungary does not suffer that much in Galicia and Warsaw and Western Poland comes under German occupation. A-H manages to contain Serbia.

There is a scenario that your are not considering. The British were about Belgian neutrality. The French were not. The French threat to London is quite simple; if you abandon us we will be forced to move through the Ardennes against Germany. This will have two effects. First, those German forces your assuming can move east cannot move east. Second, Belgium will be made a war zone, and by your own estimate of the British outlook, that will force Britain to join the war. And if Britain joins the war, it will be for France and against Germany.

1915: Italy joins war against AH and Germany.

If Britain remained neutral a better bet might be that Italy will join the Central Powers, not go to war against them.

- Without UK, France may come to terms. For two and a half years they were running their heads in on Metz/Elsass and suffered 1,000,000 casualities. Morale is low like in OTL.

Taking your scenario at absolute face value, the French would presumably fight out the first season along your expectations, but during the winter of 1914, I think a debate on strategy occurs. The options specifically would be seek peace with Germany, to revert to the defensive and await events, to continue fruitless assaults on prepared positions at heavy losses, or to expand the war laterally into another front. The reasoning for seeking peace is to leverage Britain with the threat, the reason to await events is that the Franco-Russians without Britain are too weak to contemplate winning the war in this manner. The reason to continue fruitless assaults would have to subsist on some sort of Haig dillusion of one more push, and the reason to escalate laterally would be to force Britain into the war or switch strong French forces to a tertiary theatre to defeat some weaker Germany ally.

- Maybe Ottoman Empire joins war

The Ottomans joined the war with the British involved, so I would rate them as certain to go to war with Russia in your scenario.

[Futurist]

Tsarist Russia was inevitably broken, the war accelerated its fate. As you point out - neither win nor defeat would save it. Austria-Hungary had similar problems but in Imperial Russia things were farer advanced.

An old (but good) source on Russia in WW1 is Stone's The Eastern Front. The gist of it is that Tzarist Russia wasn't not inevitably broken, but made any number of errors that brought on its own demise. I think that you might be overstating the actual vulnerability of the old empire to revolution in the case of no war, or even in the case of a war where the Tzarist regime remained more on the defensive.

I imagine something like this:
1914: Germany stays on the defence along the French border and does not attack Belgium. Hence, UK stays neutral. German troops get redeployed to the East. Austria-Hungary does not suffer that much in Galicia and Warsaw and Western Poland comes under German occupation. A-H manages to contain Serbia.

There is a scenario that your are not considering. The British were about Belgian neutrality. The French were not. The French threat to London is quite simple; if you abandon us we will be forced to move through the Ardennes against Germany. This will have two effects. First, those German forces your assuming can move east cannot move east. Second, Belgium will be made a war zone, and by your own estimate of the British outlook, that will force Britain to join the war. And if Britain joins the war, it will be for France and against Germany.

1915: Italy joins war against AH and Germany.

If Britain remained neutral a better bet might be that Italy will join the Central Powers, not go to war against them.

- Without UK, France may come to terms. For two and a half years they were running their heads in on Metz/Elsass and suffered 1,000,000 casualities. Morale is low like in OTL.

Taking your scenario at absolute face value, the French would presumably fight out the first season along your expectations, but during the winter of 1914, I think a debate on strategy occurs. The options specifically would be seek peace with Germany, to revert to the defensive and await events, to continue fruitless assaults on prepared positions at heavy losses, or to expand the war laterally into another front. The reasoning for seeking peace is to leverage Britain with the threat, the reason to await events is that the Franco-Russians without Britain are too weak to contemplate winning the war in this manner. The reason to continue fruitless assaults would have to subsist on some sort of Haig dillusion of one more push, and the reason to escalate laterally would be to force Britain into the war or switch strong French forces to a tertiary theatre to defeat some weaker Germany ally.

- Maybe Ottoman Empire joins war

The Ottomans joined the war with the British involved, so I would rate them as certain to go to war with Russia in your scenario.

Wouldn't a French move into Belgium guarantee permanent British neutrality (if not an outright British entry into the war on the CP side) if Britain has not already joined the war on the Franco-Russian side yet, though? Siding with the aggressor against poor little Belgium might not sit very well with British public opinion, would it?

As for Russia being on the defensive, just how much harder will it be for Germany to reach the Daugava-Dnieper Line in such a scenario?

[ljadw]

In the HTL there 7 armies in the west and one in the East .If France was defeated ,these 7 armies could NOT go to the East,most of them would remain tied in the West ,making victory in the East impossible .
If in the ATL there were 7 armies in the East and 1 in the West,these 7 armies would remain tied in the East for years, as a short victorious campaign in the East was out of the question .Such a campaign was only possible in the West,that's why the Schwerpunkt was in the West .
The Kaiser told his soldiers : you will be back home before the Winter,meaning that Russia would cease fighting after the defeat of France .And Germany could not demand territorial changes in the East,as it had already to many Slavs .A short war in the East would save Germany from a long and costly war which could not be won .

Again, satellite states != direct annexation. And how do you know that Germany could not win a long war in the East?

20 years later Germany lost a long war in the East .
It took them more than 3 years to defeat Imperial Russia and the results were not good for Germany : most of the Ostheer remained in the East .
Satellite states need occupation forces : Germany could not trust the Ukrainians ;at the end of the war Ukrainians killed field marshall von Eichhorn .And we know what happened when there was a Polish state : Ukrainians and Poles killed each other .The OUN was not an invention ,but a fact .
A bigger army in the East in 1914 would not result in victory (short or long war ) as a big army could not operate in the East except in the border regions . Most of the German conquests in the East happened AFTER the Russian collapse.( operation Faustschlag )
Other point that is mostly neglected by historians : a long,total war would result in a social revolution : big government,welfare state,women's suffrage,all things the ruling elite in Germany and Russia tried to avoid .
And as Germany could not afford economically and socially a long war, it was forced to search for a short war ,and a short victorious war was only possible in the West .The Schlieffen Plan had as aim to eliminate France in a few weeks, the Germans could not eliminate Russia in a few weeks or even in a long war and if they did,it would be a Pyrrhus victory .

[glenn239]

Wouldn't a French move into Belgium guarantee permanent British neutrality (if not an outright British entry into the war on the CP side) if Britain has not already joined the war on the Franco-Russian side yet, though? Siding with the aggressor against poor little Belgium might not sit very well with British public opinion, would it?

If the French moved into Belgium the British would have to enter the war or else at the end of the war what would be certain would be that either France or Germany would be in possession of Belgium. In terms of Britain declaring war on France over Belgium, while that would be theoretically possible, the practical result would be that France would have to sue for peace with Germany and Germany would be in possession of Belgium and not too interested in Britain's opinions about the matter.

As for Russia being on the defensive, just how much harder will it be for Germany to reach the Daugava-Dnieper Line in such a scenario?

I do not know.

[Futurist]

Wouldn't a French move into Belgium guarantee permanent British neutrality (if not an outright British entry into the war on the CP side) if Britain has not already joined the war on the Franco-Russian side yet, though? Siding with the aggressor against poor little Belgium might not sit very well with British public opinion, would it?

If the French moved into Belgium the British would have to enter the war or else at the end of the war what would be certain would be that either France or Germany would be in possession of Belgium. In terms of Britain declaring war on France over Belgium, while that would be theoretically possible, the practical result would be that France would have to sue for peace with Germany and Germany would be in possession of Belgium and not too interested in Britain's opinions about the matter.

What about if Germany itself will have no territorial claims on Belgium?

[glenn239]

What about if Germany itself will have no territorial claims on Belgium?

But of course the Germans would have no territorial claims on Belgium. They would not need them. The French invasion would force the German army to enter Belgium to defend itself and Belgium. Then defeating the French would require the Germans to occupy even more of it on their way to Paris. The French would surrender and the Germans would be the last army in the field in Europe, and in full possession of Belgium. Who needs to make claims when you already hold the prize?

Seriously. If the British would not fight Germany in 1914 with the entire French and Russian armies in the field, then what German would ever believe the British would fight against a German protectorate established in Belgium after the French and Russian armies no longer existed?