Belgium yields in 1914

[James G]

World War One.
How does the Western Front / Race to the Sea go in 1914 if Belgium doesn't fight and let's the German Army pass? Say after an initial fight, the Belgians go neutral and thrash out a deal where they let the Germans go though.
Does Paris fall? Do Calais and the ports fall into German hands before the BEF can make proper use of them as their staging / supply points?
Does France quit if Paris is in German hands?

[lordroel]

Mar 9, 2018 20:51:05 GMT James G said:

World War One.
How does the Western Front / Race to the Sea go in 1914 if Belgium doesn't fight and let's the German Army pass? Say after an initial fight, the Belgians go neutral and thrash out a deal where they let the Germans go though.
Does Paris fall? Do Calais and the ports fall into German hands before the BEF can make proper use of them as their staging / supply points?
Does France quit if Paris is in German hands?

Do not know, but it is interesting, wonder how the United kingdom will react to this.

[James G]

With the Channel Ports, it all depends upon when exactly the Germans get there, what French troops are there and what British troops have arrived yet / will arrive soon.
The Channel ports were the BEF's bridgeheads into France in WW1; in WW2, they went through Cherbourg and Brittany to avoid such a situation as the Germans threatening their supply points.
Let's say Calais and the others are lost and German troops sweep south. If they go to the Somme and get across - big ask - they can come around Paris from what is effectively the rear. The British will be making flank attacks if they can but France would be in trouble with that move to turn their flank.

[lordroel]

Mar 9, 2018 21:28:42 GMT James G said:

With the Channel Ports, it all depends upon when exactly the Germans get there, what French troops are there and what British troops have arrived yet / will arrive soon.
The Channel ports were the BEF's bridgeheads into France in WW1; in WW2, they went through Cherbourg and Brittany to avoid such a situation as the Germans threatening their supply points.
Let's say Calais and the others are lost and German troops sweep south. If they go to the Somme and get across - big ask - they can come around Paris from what is effectively the rear. The British will be making flank attacks if they can but France would be in trouble with that move to turn their flank.

Would the British and France declare war on Belgium.

[James G]

That I don't know. I'd assume they won't at first if Belgium put up a fight - even a short one.
But it would all depend upon the level of cooperation: real and perceived.

[stevep]

I think Britain would fight even if Belgium submitted immediately both because its still a breach of Belgium's neutrality and the 1839 treaty [which gives the casus belli for intervention and mobilising public opinion] and because its in its interest to prevent what it fears would be a quick Germany victory leaving it in charge of the continent and also the ports of Belgium and NE France - plus possibly others.

If Belgium put up no resistance at all then it complicates matters but I think that France would still seek to enter S Belgium once its neutrality was breached to fight the Germans as far forward as practical. Also that, once the BEF lands in France it would march to support them as it did OTL.

How things would go without Belgium resistance, either at all or after initial efforts, say if they surrender after the fall of the Liege forts, is difficult to say. Suspect the Germans will still fail to take Paris and it would be a long war simply because of the sheer logistical problem facing the German army, which is marching on foot a very long way. You would probably see a bit more of France and all of Belgium occupied but exactly where I can't say.

There might even be a bonus for the allies if the lack of Belgium resistance means the allies retreat towards the Marne a bit earlier, straining the German supply lines quickly. Doubt however it would avoid the French trying to carry out the idiotic Plan 17 which saw such huge losses in the battle of the frontiers. Suspect you will still have a very long war.

The down side for Britain is if the Germans get the Belgium ports and possibly say at least the Calais-Dunkirk region it makes keeping the German raiders, especially their subs, out of the channel a bit more difficult.

[steffen]

I agree with Stevep here.

If Belgium do not fight, basically allow to get occupied by german forces, without resistance, the french and british would act the same way they did OTL, fight from belgian ground.

As far as i had understood the OTL situation, belgium would have fought ANY foreign army, the british, the french, the germans (or - in a near asb-scenario the netherlands).

But if - by what factor - the belgians decide NOT to fight against the germans, the situation for the germans improve dramatically.

Now they can fully support - peacetime-like - their advancing forces, basically can load them onto trains and unload at will in belgium.
This means that the whole of Belgium will be "german" in hours, with no resistance (from the basic fighting in the start).
No "belgian rape" but "belgain betraying" at last by the french would be announced, UK would still try to capture as much as possible from the belgian channel ports.

OTL in 1914 the coastal traffic was VERY important for the London region and overall. Transport by train was inadequate, so german forces in all belgain channel ports mean the coastal traffic ends. Early. HUGE impact.

German forces could advance fast, very fast, through belgium, this means the french timetables for such scenarios are broken (no army of 1914 likes such thing).
German forces "warping" in a day through belgium (or two) is a really bad news for the entente, for me a secure big win for the CP, war is over in Early 1915. I mean the WHOLE war.

Why?
German forces crush the BEF if established
German forces could fall into the flank of the french, with a MUCH better supply line.
German forces basically save 4 weeks of hard fighting, start fresh from a position they reached OTL 3-4 weeks later. This also means that no additional forces would be send to the east (who were not necessary OTL, Tannenberg was done without them), this mean the germans propably reach the seine-river at its lenght, so Paris is cut off from great parts of its supplies. This alone mean that the french civilians in larger paris get hungry fast. Also the industries around paris run dry quickly. Morale will be broken, because in open engagements the french in the beginning suffered much more as the germans.
If the BEF is positioned (but that is in northern france, around 100km west from their OTL location), it has less impact, also the enemy is stronger.
No race to the sea, because - well the germans won that race at august 6th or 7th.

This also means that the deployment of the BEF through the channel will be contested, german light and medium forces could operate from belgium port IN the Channel region. That is - again - very bad news cause the supplyment with troops, ammo and weapons by the british is in danger. Add in the cut off coastal traffic and the whole eastern-english region face huge problems, that will seriously hamper the early war development IN england.

The french propably loose 500k more soldiers in the same time till december 1914, the germans around 200k less. The BEF is either totally destroyed or suffers huge casulties, in the same time has LESS supplies, ammo, replacements (less supplies cross channel).

I can´t see the russians be happy, if the germans, after reaching the Seine-river around september and either cutting of half of the french army in the south or force em to give up nearly all fortresses (that were OTL hard fought for, esp. Verdun), dig in and send forces to help the austrians (they will still need to do something).

Yes, that is a "wet dream" scenario for CP-Fanboys... i would love to read a timeline that explain the movement through belgium and how the battle develop from that position. I am no expert but i see 2-3 german armies easily beeing supplied by this line, this mean the germans can send more forces and these could operate more effective.

The chance for the BEF getting wiped out is around 20%, 50% for heavier casulties as OTL, 30% for - but less honorable - run to the coast, building some bridgehead.

In any scenario war is over around Spring 1915, my calculations see the french falter latest here, if the germans start to destroy Paris by heavy bombardments (fortresses first, later the outskirts, crawling to the Seine-river, cutting parts of the city apart). If the french leave paris (that would be the smartest plan - suddenly the germans have to supply 4-7million french civilians) morale is still broken.

Russia could face more casulties, a spring operation by germany could give them the advise to ask for terms.

France would face a bad time - i tried to explain that france was seen in 1914-germany as the plain evil, who wanted to rape german wifes, eat german babies, torture german men, destroy german culture, etc... basically Satan. Even with this light victory the casulties should reach 1 Million (maybe 300k dead), these numbers still mean that france will bleed hard. Loss of the Brie-area, belgium get LARGE areas of france and french colonies. Basically they get bounty for doing nothing. That force em into the german camp.
Italy stay neutral, romania could join the germans. Bulgaria would join early, late 1914, so serbia is done in spring15 too. With no evacuation. The osmans would not achive much or suffer much, basically OTL minus propably the insane winter-operation in the caucasus. Hopefully no Armenian-massacre, but for that i am a bit unsure.

The british could try to hang around, but if france has surrendered, russia negotiated (basically reparations, maybe Baku-region lend for 99 years, some baltic state (as a german puppet - i still have no clue why they were so hot about that), and - if russia is smart - a russian-poland as an easter egg (that could cause troubles and distractions) war is over. with germany having full access to the french atlantic ports a distant blocade is useless, maybe UK demand some face savings, propably get french colonies and a lip service about belgium, thats it.

The main problem is that the belgian government, King and people would have fought ANY foreign invader, i really want to know why they do not resist the german invasion.

The USA could not try to manipulate,

[perkeo]

Legally, I don’t think it matters in any way if Belgium is forced st the tip of a gun but to allow the Germans to march through or - as IOTL resists. Both violates the neutrality.
The Germans win some valuable time and get closer to Paris -but I don’t believe they can take it since even the original Schliefen Warane demands more troops.
But things get interesting when the Russian invasion is defeated: France is hit harder but still needs to survive years of attrition that brought it close to collapse IOTL.

[James G]

But doesn't the lack of fighting in Belgium free-up more troops at first and then afterwards too?

[steffen]

Apr 5, 2018 22:22:31 GMT James G said:

But doesn't the lack of fighting in Belgium free-up more troops at first and then afterwards too?

Yes, significant so.
If belgium does "nothing", esp. not sabotage the railroads, the german 1st and 2nd army are much better supplies, could propably on average march double the distance they did OTL. 

Even more important, with no fortresses to surround, no "fighting for Antwerp", the germans safe tons of casulties and ammo, more important time.

Basically the german "lightning" through belgium, causing the whole front to collapse or be moved west.

The whole "Miracle at the marne"-stuff wouldn´t work, the BEF is propably wiped out in the early engagements (against more german troops that are better supplied), for sure it is more weakened and less capable to fight.

Worse, the frontline could reach Boulogne-mar-Sur, because there are no belgian forces holding some belgian ground, the race to the sea isn´t one, the germans just march to the sea, go behind the narrows and take ports.

The whole frontline is now far to the south-west, but the frontline is not longer.
So the same or more germans, much better supplied fight less Entente-forces, esp. after the loss of critical north french industrial areas france itself is in worse conditions.

The war will not be done in 1914, but around mid 1915 the germans have killed so many french soldiers who try to retake the strategy areas, with a BEF that has more distant ports to resupply, that will stretch the thin railroad-system in the normandy far more - again less punsh by the britisch.

They will move more forces in, so no gallipoli, they need these to replace the belgian army and to stabilize the frontline (also they need more blood to feed the war machine, because more violant and less prepared assaults to supply the french are needed, in times they lack them... so expect higher british and french casulties, in the same time LESS german casulties.

If you add some nice british troopships sunk by german subs, you get a very negative media/press campagin, that helps the CP with italy (stay propably neutral)... 

In the east things will happen similar to OTL, maybe germany - having around 20% less casulties (no Marne-Battle with higher casulties, no casulties versus the belgians, more succsess in the race to the sea, better supplied and rested forces, more "hasty assaults" by the entente causing them higher losses with less german losses) send another army in the east helping austria to avoid the spring-15 desaster at pem-berg. That alone would improve the austrian situation significant. Even if the other stuff is the same.


Overall i see a frontline like this
Etaples - Neuville-sous-Montreuil - Hesdin - Arras - Compiègne - Châlons-en-Champagne - Verdun - OTL-south
(more or less).
With this the germans could move freely into the channel, cutting or reducing the coastal traffic. That has - for UK a major effect (1/3 of the Londoners need to get evacuated!). If the germans also could mine the mouth of the river seine things get really problematic for the Entente. 

With this frontline the Entente is doomed. OTL with much better conditions the germans only lost because they made some strategic mistakes.
Here i see Romania and Italy staying neutral, strictly neutral (= food for germany will be happily sold by the romanians)
You even could see - after UK invading Belgian congo - the belgians switching sides and join the germans... so they could be compensated by french area post-war.

France is significant weaker, UK need much more money per month to support the french -> the financial crisis for UK will happen much earlier (OTL they were finished in march/april 1917, here this could happen around autum16). 

Would the british ruin themself for a lost cause?They earned the nickname "perfidious albion" not for nothing...

[stevep]

Apr 5, 2018 22:22:31 GMT James G said:

But doesn't the lack of fighting in Belgium free-up more troops at first and then afterwards too?

  Not really as they still have limits on what troops they can push through the region and how well they can keep them supplied.  Your still got the same stretch of ground and logistics links running through them.  Also without fighting the Belgians won't put up opposition but their unlikely to be helpful.  As such trains can go astray, key staff being absent, maintenance being overlooked.  True your likely to get a brutal reaction if the Germans think there's any such opposition but who would they target among the Belgium civilians and how much would that push up anger further.

  The initial clashes could occur a few days earlier and further west, which means the Germans have marched further and the allies less distance.  Basically once you got past the German border the vast bulk of the armies marched by foot and their supplies were primarily by horse drawn waggon.  Presuming the allies are pushed back as OTL, which is likely as their significantly outnumbered, you could get a retreat to the Marne as OTL.  However this means the German forces are marching even further per day.  According to a lot of reports both sides were largely exhausted by the 1st month's rapid movement, especially since the period saw a lot of hot dry weather.  Read recently that a lot of the British reservists had problems adjusting to marching such distances, especially in new boots so suspect this was also the case for the continental armies which depended even more heavily on reservists to bulk out their armies.

  The likelihood is that things will go a bit faster than OTL and that the end position is that the Germans might push a bit further west in the 'race to the sea' but probably not greatly so.  This will complicate matters somewhat at the eastern end to the channel but not greatly so and it might result in the German navy trying a few probes into the Channel, but that is likely to be costly for them. 

  Without open Belgium resistance to the invasion there will be a few less troops but not greatly so and the trench lines will be a bit further west but I think simple logistics makes it virtually impossible for a capture of Paris.  There will be some more French under German control but given Belgium's non-combatant status will the Germans, at least at 1st loot it as heavily as OTL and remove people for forced labour?  If so it will cause even more of a stink than OTL.

[steffen]

Apr 6, 2018 13:07:11 GMT stevep said:

Apr 5, 2018 22:22:31 GMT James G said:

But doesn't the lack of fighting in Belgium free-up more troops at first and then afterwards too?

  Not really as they still have limits on what troops they can push through the region and how well they can keep them supplied.  Your still got the same stretch of ground and logistics links running through them.  Also without fighting the Belgians won't put up opposition but their unlikely to be helpful.  As such trains can go astray, key staff being absent, maintenance being overlooked.  True your likely to get a brutal reaction if the Germans think there's any such opposition but who would they target among the Belgium civilians and how much would that push up anger further.

  The initial clashes could occur a few days earlier and further west, which means the Germans have marched further and the allies less distance.  Basically once you got past the German border the vast bulk of the armies marched by foot and their supplies were primarily by horse drawn waggon.  Presuming the allies are pushed back as OTL, which is likely as their significantly outnumbered, you could get a retreat to the Marne as OTL.  However this means the German forces are marching even further per day.  According to a lot of reports both sides were largely exhausted by the 1st month's rapid movement, especially since the period saw a lot of hot dry weather.  Read recently that a lot of the British reservists had problems adjusting to marching such distances, especially in new boots so suspect this was also the case for the continental armies which depended even more heavily on reservists to bulk out their armies.

  The likelihood is that things will go a bit faster than OTL and that the end position is that the Germans might push a bit further west in the 'race to the sea' but probably not greatly so.  This will complicate matters somewhat at the eastern end to the channel but not greatly so and it might result in the German navy trying a few probes into the Channel, but that is likely to be costly for them. 

  Without open Belgium resistance to the invasion there will be a few less troops but not greatly so and the trench lines will be a bit further west but I think simple logistics makes it virtually impossible for a capture of Paris.  There will be some more French under German control but given Belgium's non-combatant status will the Germans, at least at 1st loot it as heavily as OTL and remove people for forced labour?  If so it will cause even more of a stink than OTL.

Everything you write is false.

OTL the belgian resistance was the key of the entente-defences.
The fortresses not taken easily meant the germans had a huge delay in supply-routes, needed forces, guns and ammo they could have used against the BEF and the french forces.

The sabotage on the belgian railroads by the belgian armed forces were the key of the slow down of the german armies marching through belgium. 

Your point about "harsh german reactions" against civilians seem to be a huge obsession from you. Propably you have read to much british propaganda or seen to much (bad) war movies about ww1.

With the belgians not opposing the germans marching through their country there is no need to fight "resistance-fighters", because - well there will be none.

As i mentioned, you seem to be obsessed with utterly wrong pictures in your mind. I don´t want to sound rude, but if you read about OTL, you could clearly see a picture:
Every time the german forces in 1914 faced hard opposition and heavy casulties, they belived the civilian forces - as french propaganda also had mentioned - had caused it. Without any resistance  you have nil heavy casulties. Basically it is a march through belgium, supplied by full working railroads they will move much faster.

you ignore this fact 100%... also you ignore the whole forces the germans needed to supress/fight the belgian army, the antwerp-fortress... i still do not know if you do that on purpose (for a probritish agenda, even in such scenarios) or if you lack the knowledge about the massive impact the belgian forces had on the german plans.

It is also - because you are so sensitive about "insulting" so much more insulting to the resistance of the belgian army, that suffered high casulties. I think you should appologize for this disrespectful behaviour against the belgians in 1914. Because you basically nullify their impact.
That is quite disappointing.

Nope, the fact is - if the belgians stay aside the germans crush utterly the french and british forces and win in the west the war. Not in one campagin, but with a much better frontline, that force the british to supply from far behind in the west, stretching the allready stretched french railroadsystem even more, causing huge internal problems because the rump BEF (after it crashed into the much stronger german forces - no casulties in belgium, much better supplied) has a base far behind (that made them very nervous in OTL - you never saw british forces to far away from the coast... look at a map of the french railroadsystem of 1914 and understand, with the germans reaching the cast at Boulogne-sur-mar, propably amiens and arras (one or both taken) the british lack their good supply line to the coast. THat mean "game over" or a fundamental change of attitude... knowing how the british army and government thought in that time it needs an asb-event for them to change their opinion. 

The described plot is a win-win-win-loose-scenario...
belgium wins, no devasted areas, no casulties
germany wins - they win easily the war, that is not called a world war. 
all wins - because with the war ending much earlier (1915-17) you avoid the spanish flu-massacre that costs 150 million deads, esp. in europe.
UK and france loose - because the winning germans will punish france (propably give the border areas to belgium, take Bethune and the ressources here, resettle (that is the new wording, right?) 1 millon or 2 frenchmen from these areas, remove the border fortresses, reduce the size of the french army, so they are no threat anymore, take the french colonies (if the british want to make a longer war they fight on, but with german subs and surface forces operating from french atlantic and channel ports i doubt the british government really want to starve to death. THat could happen in that scenario... 

No, the belgians not fighting but allowing the germans to march through is the death sentence for the entente... it is the 100% german win in the west, because they reach a much better frontline, deep into the channel-coast. Take out Bethune-area, remove the last ressources the french have, disrupt even more the railroad system of northwestern france, move nearer to the seine-river, take more industrial areas out. 
They stop the coastal movements that are needed to supply london. If you don´t belive just look into the sources, 1/3 of the londoners have to be removed because the coastal traffic was THAT important in 1914-18. 
How you could think that this will have no impact on the war is interesting... but wait, it seems you think (very very insulting, really) that the belgians had no impact on the german war machine in august/september 1914... 

[lordroel]

Apr 7, 2018 12:39:14 GMT steffen said:

Everything you write is false.

steffen, we are no going to accuse anybody of saying that something is false, we talk about it we prove ore disprove it but saying that something is false is not what we say.

[steffen]

Apr 8, 2018 7:41:44 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 7, 2018 12:39:14 GMT steffen said:

Everything you write is false.

steffen, we are no going to accuse anybody of saying that something is false, we talk about it we prove ore disprove it but saying that something is false is not what we say.

okay,... that is wrong. i appologize. Should i correct that?

[lordroel]

Apr 8, 2018 14:17:44 GMT steffen said:

Apr 8, 2018 7:41:44 GMT lordroel said:

steffen, we are no going to accuse anybody of saying that something is false, we talk about it we prove ore disprove it but saying that something is false is not what we say.

okay,... that is wrong. i appologize. Should i correct that?

No need but just remember in the future, but now back to topic.