German "East First" Plan in 1914?

[Futurist]

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?

If the French and Russians are already solidly defeated, then Yes, in that case Germany might decide to establish its own protectorate over Belgium. But probably not beforehand. Of course, if Germany wanted to get really nasty it could offer Belgium territorial concessions in heavily industrial northern France (Lille, et cetera) as compensation for the establishment of this German protectorate. I mean, France is going to be hostile towards Germany anyway, so might as well have a stronger pro-German Belgium at France's expense.

[ljadw]

And why should Belgium accept territorial concessions in northern France ?

[ljadw]

East First Plan in 1914 does mean that a war in the West would be very unlikely,as such a plan would be a wet dream for France : the Russians would kill a lot of Germans and Germany would be that weaken that it would no longer be a threat for France .
This Plan would be the best possible scenario for France .

[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.

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

I am not sure which of the two would be preferable. But I doubt the contemporary people in charge would understand trade because their thinking went along feudal traditions. They did not understand the concept of trade.

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.

Some. Not all. Russia would still have Petrograd and other regions.

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.

What makes war attractive for UK? Cripple Imperial Germany. Gain trade and markets, eliminate an economic competitor. Decimate the own working class and reduce domestic dissens.

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.

Maybe. This would lead to a new frontline in French Alps/Piemont and one somewhere in Tuscany comparable to the stance of 1944.

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.

If they manage to 'persuade' Belgium to declare war on Germany and make it join their alliance, I see no British dissatisfaction. If (or when?) UK decides to join the war on the side of Entente (where else?) they could motivate Belgium on their own.

UK will tip the scales. France and Russia on the one side and Germany and Austria-Hungary on the other are in an equilibrium, maybe Germany can shift it.

After the ATL losses in 1914-16 in Metz, Vosges, France would need a British Expeditionary Force to start an offensive via Belgium. Belgian Army couldn't do it alone. Germany would not have removed all forces along the Belgian-German border, I guess, and they would have to redeploy forces back from the east to contain an offensive.
In all, we get something very similar to OTL WW1, only delayed by the period in which the UK has not yet intervened - here: by three years. There would be no Somme offensives but something similar along the Belgian-German-border. Difference in ATL: Germany suffers three years less of heavy attrition against BEF as they did in OTL. This force can go somewhere.

I am not sure if British or French interest in Belgian Kongo colony is big enough to declare war on Belgium. Which would make it take sides with Germany.

- 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.

As Ijadw pointed out: Threre would be tensions between between ethnies and nationalities, e.g. Ukrainians and Poles. Germany would not anticipate or care about these problems and consequences and just try to supress them. Or try to instrumentalize them against each other and against the new Post-Imperial Russia: So another war between Ukraine and NewRussia like the war between Poland and SU in 1920/21 becomes possible..

- 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.

I was sloppy. To clarify: Ottoman Empire would try to get Georgia, Armenia and other Caucausus regions from broken Imperialist Russia.
German naval operations/submarine warfare could faciliate a British DOW on Germany.

US is a different matter: US will involve itself if the French or (mainly) the British are deep enough indebted and there is risk that they can't pay back. With Britain entering the war three years later than OTL, they accumulated just not enough american loans that US has to make sure Britain wins to repay. Or maybe US wants to jump their economy anyways. On the other side: Without British blockade until 1917, Germany can indebt itself in US, so US may assure their victory.

[glenn239]

If the French and Russians are already solidly defeated, then Yes, in that case Germany might decide to establish its own protectorate over Belgium. But probably not beforehand.

Right, but from Britain's perspective, what difference does the two year delay make? Simply by invading the Ardennes, the French trigger a contingency in which the British must intercede on the side of France or face the inevitability of a German protectorate over Belgium. Of course, the Germans would hotly deny any such intention as the war raged - right up until the day the French and Russians surrendered. Then, after Britain's continental swords had been broken the Germans could dispense with the appeasement of London and refashion Europe to their liking.

So if France invades Belgium the British will have difficulty remaining neutral. What if, you ask, the French and Germans do not invade Belgium? After all, in 1870 neither did so. In that case, as you rightly pointed out, the French will be unable to take the strategic initiative in the West. The Germans will be able to concentrate in the East. It would take years, but sooner or later, the Russians would exit the war. Then, France stands alone.

Of course, if Germany wanted to get really nasty it could offer Belgium territorial concessions in heavily industrial northern France (Lille, et cetera) as compensation for the establishment of this German protectorate. I mean, France is going to be hostile towards Germany anyway, so might as well have a stronger pro-German Belgium at France's expense.

I don't know. The salient point is that it would be entirely Germany's prerogative on what to do, and what the British wanted would not be high on the priority list. In terms of the French outlook, after Austria was defeated in 1866, the Austrians allied with the Prussians and turned their attention elsewhere as a matter of practicality. Perhaps France would do the same thing.

[ljadw]

So if France invades Belgium the British will have difficulty remaining neutral. What if, you ask, the French and Germans do not invade Belgium? After all, in 1870 neither did so. In that case, as you rightly pointed out, the French will be unable to take the strategic initiative in the West. The Germans will be able to concentrate in the East. It would take years, but sooner or later, the Russians would exit the war. Then, France stands alone.

No :France would not stand alone : it would still have Britain .And the help of Britain was much more important than the help of Russia, which was very doubtful.