|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 20, 2023 16:36:20 GMT
Point of information: The blockade was going on before Jutland; indeed, from the very outbreak of war. It wasn’t something contingent upon any outcome of any battle at sea.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836 
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on May 21, 2023 11:19:07 GMT
What reliable information? France had plans to counter a German invasion of Belgium, which they expected and knew Germany planned OTL and were able to do so by moving into part of southern Belgium after the Germany invasion. However they made sure they kept out of Belgium territory and even withdrew their forces some way back from the Belgium border to avoid any risk of either an accident or German claims of such intent. This sounds more like the sort of propaganda too common in the war on all sides but especially probably the Germans to excuse their own actions.
Since Germany viewed Britain as an hostile power and Belgium wanted its neutrality respected I doubt either would be willing to suggest a British force in Belgium, even if London was willing. Belgium I also believe was fairly confident of its modern fortifications at Liege and other locations to hold until aid could reach them if they were attacked.
The German navy in 1914 was a significant threat to Britain and its local interests. As new construction entered service in the next couple of years the balance tilted towards the RN although as Jutland showed there were significant weaknesses in the RN force including doctrine, training and tactics as well as material. However once the bulk of the German forces outside the North Sea were hunted down the real threat was always the subs, albeit that leading figures on both sides didn't realise that yet.
The Germans were willing to secure British neutrality, unfortunately their belief that France would use Belgian territory to attack Germany meant that they could not give London the assurance she needed – recognition of Belgian neutrality. Indeed Germany had proposed a policy of ‘Benign Neutrality’ where Belgium would let German troops transit through their territory. Belgium had a strict policy of neutrality, so they dismissed this proposal. The Battle of Jutland was indecisive and both sides a heavy price in terms of life lost. Great Britain however was able to take control and launch a blockade of Germany which contributed to the collapse of the country.
You state they had a belief that France would use Belgium territory to attack them but give no actual information on whether there was any basis for this or just that elements in Germany assumed that France would do so? Or even that they used such arguments for the OTL case OTL when Germany was committed to a massive invasion of France via Belgium so a preemptive French invasion was a non-runner.
In this scenario, where they decide to concentrate their offensive strength against Russia with say 3-4 armies in defence in the west/general reserve there is a distinct chance that France will consider such a move assuming their initial attacks in Alsace-Lorraine were as disastrous as OTL and Russia is in trouble, both of which are likely. However since that would undermine their position with regards to London whether they would do that or something else would be unclear. Its the obvious option in those circumstances but that doesn't mean even in this scenario they will do so.
The Battle of Jutland was indecisive but as Simon said the blockade was in place earlier. Its also fairly unlikely to be affected even if British losses had been heavier at Jutland as attempts to attack the blockading cruisers operating between Britain and Norway would have been risky for the HSF.
|
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Jun 5, 2023 17:14:56 GMT
Point of information: The blockade was going on before Jutland; indeed, from the very outbreak of war. It wasn’t something contingent upon any outcome of any battle at sea. The blockade of sorts was in place at the outset of the conflict, but the Battle of Jutland allowed Britain to implement a blockade that would contribute to a German defeat. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 5, 2023 17:46:53 GMT
No, that is utterly, utterly wrong. The blockade was not dependent upon a tactically mixed engagement in 1916. I would suggest some reading on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Jun 5, 2023 17:48:39 GMT
The Germans were willing to secure British neutrality, unfortunately their belief that France would use Belgian territory to attack Germany meant that they could not give London the assurance she needed – recognition of Belgian neutrality. Indeed Germany had proposed a policy of ‘Benign Neutrality’ where Belgium would let German troops transit through their territory. Belgium had a strict policy of neutrality, so they dismissed this proposal. The Battle of Jutland was indecisive and both sides a heavy price in terms of life lost. Great Britain however was able to take control and launch a blockade of Germany which contributed to the collapse of the country.
You state they had a belief that France would use Belgium territory to attack them but give no actual information on whether there was any basis for this or just that elements in Germany assumed that France would do so? Or even that they used such arguments for the OTL case OTL when Germany was committed to a massive invasion of France via Belgium so a preemptive French invasion was a non-runner.
In this scenario, where they decide to concentrate their offensive strength against Russia with say 3-4 armies in defence in the west/general reserve there is a distinct chance that France will consider such a move assuming their initial attacks in Alsace-Lorraine were as disastrous as OTL and Russia is in trouble, both of which are likely. However since that would undermine their position with regards to London whether they would do that or something else would be unclear. Its the obvious option in those circumstances but that doesn't mean even in this scenario they will do so.
The Battle of Jutland was indecisive but as Simon said the blockade was in place earlier. Its also fairly unlikely to be affected even if British losses had been heavier at Jutland as attempts to attack the blockading cruisers operating between Britain and Norway would have been risky for the HSF.
Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandschaft in Belgien-Brüssel August 2, 1914 (Very Confidential) RELIABLE information has been received by the German Government to the effect that French forces intend to march on the line of the Meuse by Givet and Namur. This information leaves no doubt as to the intention of France to march through Belgian territory against Germany. The German Government cannot but fear that Belgium, in spite of the utmost goodwill, will be unable, without assistance, to repel so considerable a French invasion with sufficient prospect of success to afford an adequate guarantee against danger to Germany. It is essential for the self-defence of Germany that she should anticipate any such hostile attack. The German Government would, however, feel the deepest regret if Belgium regarded as an act of hostility against herself the fact that the measures of Germany's opponents force Germany, for her own protection, to enter Belgian territory. In order to exclude any possibility of misunderstanding, the German Government make the following declaration: -- 1. Germany has in view no act of hostility against Belgium. In the event of Belgium being prepared in the coming war to maintain an attitude of friendly neutrality towards Germany, the German Government bind them selves, at the conclusion of peace, to guarantee the possessions and independence of the Belgian Kingdom in full. 2. Germany undertakes, under the above-mentioned condition, to evacuate Belgian territory on the conclusion of peace. 3. If Belgium adopts a friendly attitude, Germany is prepared, in cooperation with the Belgian authorities, to purchase all necessaries for her troops against a cash payment, and to pay an indemnity for any damage that may have been caused by German troops. 4. Should Belgium oppose the German troops, and in particular should she throw difficulties in the way of their march by a resistance of the fortre sses on the Meuse, or by destroying railways, roads, tunnels, or other similar works, Germany will, to her regret, be compelled to consider Belgium as an enemy. In this event, Germany can undertake no obligations towards Belgium, but the eventual adjustment of the relations between the two States must be left to the decision of arms. The German Government, however, entertain the distinct hope that this eventuality will not occur, and that the Belgian Government will know how to take the necessary measures to prevent the occurrence of incidents such as those mentioned. In this case the friendly ties which bind the two neighbouring States will grow stronger and more enduring. I am unable to determine the source for this ‘reliable information’. The French Plan XVII was to have La cinquième armée (5e armée) invade Germany through Belgian territory, but I doubt this was the basis for the claim made in the note dated 2 August 1914. Mark Stout article on warontherocks states that the information was probably false. warontherocks.com/2014/08/warchives-germanys-violation-of-belgian-neutrality-in-1914/ |
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Jun 5, 2023 18:17:10 GMT
No, that is utterly, utterly wrong. The blockade was not dependent upon a tactically mixed engagement in 1916. I would suggest some reading on the matter. I entered into this discussion to give my opinion based on what I have read through researching the topic and issues raised. I don't wish to become tangled up in a combative episode with you so with that in mind I welcome your valued criticism and will engage with you, but I would appreciate it if you don't assume things about me. My source on the Battle of Jutland is this article from The Imperial War Museum www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-was-the-battle-of-jutland |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jun 5, 2023 19:44:52 GMT
You state they had a belief that France would use Belgium territory to attack them but give no actual information on whether there was any basis for this or just that elements in Germany assumed that France would do so? Or even that they used such arguments for the OTL case OTL when Germany was committed to a massive invasion of France via Belgium so a preemptive French invasion was a non-runner.
In this scenario, where they decide to concentrate their offensive strength against Russia with say 3-4 armies in defence in the west/general reserve there is a distinct chance that France will consider such a move assuming their initial attacks in Alsace-Lorraine were as disastrous as OTL and Russia is in trouble, both of which are likely. However since that would undermine their position with regards to London whether they would do that or something else would be unclear. Its the obvious option in those circumstances but that doesn't mean even in this scenario they will do so.
The Battle of Jutland was indecisive but as Simon said the blockade was in place earlier. Its also fairly unlikely to be affected even if British losses had been heavier at Jutland as attempts to attack the blockading cruisers operating between Britain and Norway would have been risky for the HSF.
Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandschaft in Belgien-Brüssel August 2, 1914 (Very Confidential) RELIABLE information has been received by the German Government to the effect that French forces intend to march on the line of the Meuse by Givet and Namur. This information leaves no doubt as to the intention of France to march through Belgian territory against Germany. The German Government cannot but fear that Belgium, in spite of the utmost goodwill, will be unable, without assistance, to repel so considerable a French invasion with sufficient prospect of success to afford an adequate guarantee against danger to Germany. It is essential for the self-defence of Germany that she should anticipate any such hostile attack. The German Government would, however, feel the deepest regret if Belgium regarded as an act of hostility against herself the fact that the measures of Germany's opponents force Germany, for her own protection, to enter Belgian territory. In order to exclude any possibility of misunderstanding, the German Government make the following declaration: -- 1. Germany has in view no act of hostility against Belgium. In the event of Belgium being prepared in the coming war to maintain an attitude of friendly neutrality towards Germany, the German Government bind them selves, at the conclusion of peace, to guarantee the possessions and independence of the Belgian Kingdom in full. 2. Germany undertakes, under the above-mentioned condition, to evacuate Belgian territory on the conclusion of peace. 3. If Belgium adopts a friendly attitude, Germany is prepared, in cooperation with the Belgian authorities, to purchase all necessaries for her troops against a cash payment, and to pay an indemnity for any damage that may have been caused by German troops. 4. Should Belgium oppose the German troops, and in particular should she throw difficulties in the way of their march by a resistance of the fortre sses on the Meuse, or by destroying railways, roads, tunnels, or other similar works, Germany will, to her regret, be compelled to consider Belgium as an enemy. In this event, Germany can undertake no obligations towards Belgium, but the eventual adjustment of the relations between the two States must be left to the decision of arms. The German Government, however, entertain the distinct hope that this eventuality will not occur, and that the Belgian Government will know how to take the necessary measures to prevent the occurrence of incidents such as those mentioned. In this case the friendly ties which bind the two neighbouring States will grow stronger and more enduring. I am unable to determine the source for this ‘reliable information’. The French Plan XVII was to have La cinquième armée (5e armée) invade Germany through Belgian territory, but I doubt this was the basis for the claim made in the note dated 2 August 1914. Mark Stout article on warontherocks states that the information was probably false. warontherocks.com/2014/08/warchives-germanys-violation-of-belgian-neutrality-in-1914/
Thanks. Given that German war plans depended on an invasion of Belgium as a core part of their entire operation and that French forces had been ordered to pull back from the Belgium border to avoid giving any excuse I suspect this was an attempt to provide a diplomatic excuse for the German invasion. As I understand it the French were aware of some sort of attack coming via Belgium but grossly underestimated the size of it, hence they had only 1 army committed to support Belgium, along with the BEF when Britain reacted to the the German invasion and they found themselves facing massively greater forces.
Its interesting as well that the document includes in points 3) and 4) warnings against what Belgium actually did, with 4) being especially important as it threatened the ability to march through Belgium and into France.
Of course if Germany had gone for a eastern offensive as the PoD suggests they would be stupid to threaten Belgium neutrality in such a way and would be well positioned to maintain an army [or possibly two] to aid Belgium if it was attacked by France. Which would have meant the war there being fought largely on Belgium territory and France having the onus of having breached Belgium neutrality and pushed that country into the opposing camp. As well as having made it markedly less likely Britain could have intervened against Germany.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jun 5, 2023 19:57:09 GMT
No, that is utterly, utterly wrong. The blockade was not dependent upon a tactically mixed engagement in 1916. I would suggest some reading on the matter. I entered into this discussion to give my opinion based on what I have read through researching the topic and issues raised. I don't wish to become tangled up in a combative episode with you so with that in mind I welcome your valued criticism and will engage with you, but I would appreciate it if you don't assume things about me. My source on the Battle of Jutland is this article from The Imperial War Museum www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-was-the-battle-of-jutland
Simon is correct in that the blockade was in place from the start of the war. I think the issue is with the section of that link:
which I believe is loosely worded. Strictly speaking it hints that the blockade wasn't in place and was only implemented after the battle but it should really say "continue the blockade". I have actually asked them to make such a change to avoid future such confusion.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Jun 5, 2023 22:04:00 GMT
Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandschaft in Belgien-Brüssel August 2, 1914 (Very Confidential) RELIABLE information has been received by the German Government to the effect that French forces intend to march on the line of the Meuse by Givet and Namur. This information leaves no doubt as to the intention of France to march through Belgian territory against Germany. The German Government cannot but fear that Belgium, in spite of the utmost goodwill, will be unable, without assistance, to repel so considerable a French invasion with sufficient prospect of success to afford an adequate guarantee against danger to Germany. It is essential for the self-defence of Germany that she should anticipate any such hostile attack. The German Government would, however, feel the deepest regret if Belgium regarded as an act of hostility against herself the fact that the measures of Germany's opponents force Germany, for her own protection, to enter Belgian territory. In order to exclude any possibility of misunderstanding, the German Government make the following declaration: -- 1. Germany has in view no act of hostility against Belgium. In the event of Belgium being prepared in the coming war to maintain an attitude of friendly neutrality towards Germany, the German Government bind them selves, at the conclusion of peace, to guarantee the possessions and independence of the Belgian Kingdom in full. 2. Germany undertakes, under the above-mentioned condition, to evacuate Belgian territory on the conclusion of peace. 3. If Belgium adopts a friendly attitude, Germany is prepared, in cooperation with the Belgian authorities, to purchase all necessaries for her troops against a cash payment, and to pay an indemnity for any damage that may have been caused by German troops. 4. Should Belgium oppose the German troops, and in particular should she throw difficulties in the way of their march by a resistance of the fortre sses on the Meuse, or by destroying railways, roads, tunnels, or other similar works, Germany will, to her regret, be compelled to consider Belgium as an enemy. In this event, Germany can undertake no obligations towards Belgium, but the eventual adjustment of the relations between the two States must be left to the decision of arms. The German Government, however, entertain the distinct hope that this eventuality will not occur, and that the Belgian Government will know how to take the necessary measures to prevent the occurrence of incidents such as those mentioned. In this case the friendly ties which bind the two neighbouring States will grow stronger and more enduring. I am unable to determine the source for this ‘reliable information’. The French Plan XVII was to have La cinquième armée (5e armée) invade Germany through Belgian territory, but I doubt this was the basis for the claim made in the note dated 2 August 1914. Mark Stout article on warontherocks states that the information was probably false. warontherocks.com/2014/08/warchives-germanys-violation-of-belgian-neutrality-in-1914/
Thanks. Given that German war plans depended on an invasion of Belgium as a core part of their entire operation and that French forces had been ordered to pull back from the Belgium border to avoid giving any excuse I suspect this was an attempt to provide a diplomatic excuse for the German invasion. As I understand it the French were aware of some sort of attack coming via Belgium but grossly underestimated the size of it, hence they had only 1 army committed to support Belgium, along with the BEF when Britain reacted to the the German invasion and they found themselves facing massively greater forces.
Its interesting as well that the document includes in points 3) and 4) warnings against what Belgium actually did, with 4) being especially important as it threatened the ability to march through Belgium and into France.
Of course if Germany had gone for a eastern offensive as the PoD suggests they would be stupid to threaten Belgium neutrality in such a way and would be well positioned to maintain an army [or possibly two] to aid Belgium if it was attacked by France. Which would have meant the war there being fought largely on Belgium territory and France having the onus of having breached Belgium neutrality and pushed that country into the opposing camp. As well as having made it markedly less likely Britain could have intervened against Germany.
Article VII Treaty of London 1839 states Belgium, within the limits of Articles I, II and IV, shall form an independent and perpetually neutral State. It shall be bound to observe such neutrality towards all other states… At the time The Hague Convention (V) 1907 respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land defined neutrality and Article II specifically states that “Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral power” Germany had no legal standing to offer Belgium “benign neutrality”. The Belgians response can be seen in the Belgian Legation’s note to Sir Edward Grey “Germany sent yesterday evening at seven o'clock a Note proposing to Belgium friendly neutrality, covering free passage on Belgian territory, and promising maintenance of independence of the kingdom and possession at the conclusion of peace, and threatening, in case of refusal, to treat Belgium as an enemy. A time limit of twelve hours was fixed for the reply. The Belgians have answered that an attack on their neutrality would be a flagrant violation of the rights of nations, and that to accept the German proposal would be to sacrifice the honour of a nation. Conscious of its duty, Belgium is firmly resolved to repel aggression by all possible means.” Had Berlin moved east against Russia then France would be obligated to declare war against Germany, but this would give Paris a headache – they could either violate the Treaty of London and invade Belgium or they could go through Alsace and Lorraine. Violating Belgian neutrality would risk angering London something that France could not afford to do. Going through Alsace and Lorraine would be the only option – thing is could France make it fast enough to seize control on German industrial heartland and better yet could they hold it. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 6, 2023 1:49:50 GMT
No, that is utterly, utterly wrong. The blockade was not dependent upon a tactically mixed engagement in 1916. I would suggest some reading on the matter. I entered into this discussion to give my opinion based on what I have read through researching the topic and issues raised. I don't wish to become tangled up in a combative episode with you so with that in mind I welcome your valued criticism and will engage with you, but I would appreciate it if you don't assume things about me. My source on the Battle of Jutland is this article from The Imperial War Museum www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-was-the-battle-of-jutlandIt’s not combative, but simply a matter of right and wrong. History is not a realm of purely subjective opinion. I’m assuming nothing about you - not knowing you from a bar of soap - simply stating that some further reading on the topic will iron out any misunderstanding. As Steve says, the IWM has one faulty word that gives the wrong impression. www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/spotlights/blockade.htmen.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_GermanyWhilst I don’t endorse Wikipedia as a source, perusal of the books (including one official monograph now sadly offline) indicates that the blockade was very much in place and not ‘of sorts’, nor impacted by the outcome of Jutland in its extent or effect. |
|
nomommsen
Chief petty officer
Posts: 114
Likes: 90
|
Post by nomommsen on Jun 11, 2023 9:19:51 GMT
You state they had a belief that France would use Belgium territory to attack them but give no actual information on whether there was any basis for this or just that elements in Germany assumed that France would do so? Or even that they used such arguments for the OTL case OTL when Germany was committed to a massive invasion of France via Belgium so a preemptive French invasion was a non-runner.
In this scenario, where they decide to concentrate their offensive strength against Russia with say 3-4 armies in defence in the west/general reserve there is a distinct chance that France will consider such a move assuming their initial attacks in Alsace-Lorraine were as disastrous as OTL and Russia is in trouble, both of which are likely. However since that would undermine their position with regards to London whether they would do that or something else would be unclear. Its the obvious option in those circumstances but that doesn't mean even in this scenario they will do so.
The Battle of Jutland was indecisive but as Simon said the blockade was in place earlier. Its also fairly unlikely to be affected even if British losses had been heavier at Jutland as attempts to attack the blockading cruisers operating between Britain and Norway would have been risky for the HSF.
Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandschaft in Belgien-Brüssel August 2, 1914 (Very Confidential) RELIABLE information has been received by the German Government to the effect that French forces intend to march on the line of the Meuse by Givet and Namur. This information leaves no doubt as to the intention of France to march through Belgian territory against Germany. The German Government cannot but fear that Belgium, in spite of the utmost goodwill, will be unable, without assistance, to repel so considerable a French invasion with sufficient prospect of success to afford an adequate guarantee against danger to Germany. It is essential for the self-defence of Germany that she should anticipate any such hostile attack. The German Government would, however, feel the deepest regret if Belgium regarded as an act of hostility against herself the fact that the measures of Germany's opponents force Germany, for her own protection, to enter Belgian territory. In order to exclude any possibility of misunderstanding, the German Government make the following declaration: -- 1. Germany has in view no act of hostility against Belgium. In the event of Belgium being prepared in the coming war to maintain an attitude of friendly neutrality towards Germany, the German Government bind them selves, at the conclusion of peace, to guarantee the possessions and independence of the Belgian Kingdom in full. 2. Germany undertakes, under the above-mentioned condition, to evacuate Belgian territory on the conclusion of peace. 3. If Belgium adopts a friendly attitude, Germany is prepared, in cooperation with the Belgian authorities, to purchase all necessaries for her troops against a cash payment, and to pay an indemnity for any damage that may have been caused by German troops. 4. Should Belgium oppose the German troops, and in particular should she throw difficulties in the way of their march by a resistance of the fortre sses on the Meuse, or by destroying railways, roads, tunnels, or other similar works, Germany will, to her regret, be compelled to consider Belgium as an enemy. In this event, Germany can undertake no obligations towards Belgium, but the eventual adjustment of the relations between the two States must be left to the decision of arms. The German Government, however, entertain the distinct hope that this eventuality will not occur, and that the Belgian Government will know how to take the necessary measures to prevent the occurrence of incidents such as those mentioned. In this case the friendly ties which bind the two neighbouring States will grow stronger and more enduring. I am unable to determine the source for this ‘reliable information’. The French Plan XVII was to have La cinquième armée (5e armée) invade Germany through Belgian territory, but I doubt this was the basis for the claim made in the note dated 2 August 1914. Mark Stout article on warontherocks states that the information was probably false. warontherocks.com/2014/08/warchives-germanys-violation-of-belgian-neutrality-in-1914/Well ... the document shown (in some ... improvable translation with adding non-existant elemts like :(Very Confidential)" or highlightening the word "RELIABLE") on the link from the site you've linked to was sent from Berlinto Herrn v.Below-Saleske in a sealed envelope by personal messenger on 29th July stemming from a draft by Moltke the Minor being reworked by officials of the foreign affairs secretariate as well as the office of the chancellor for some days prior to.
But ... Moltke the Minor had no information at all of french military operations and plans ASIDE only his very own considerations of war gaming the situation. ... aka he invented it.
And I can only seconde stevep that Below-Saleske in case of an "East First" campaign would have very likely been immediatly ordered to very literaly "burn" this envelope unopened. It would never have seen the light of Bruessels.
|
|
nomommsen
Chief petty officer
Posts: 114
Likes: 90
|
Post by nomommsen on Jun 11, 2023 9:27:36 GMT
The Belgians response can be seen in the Belgian Legation’s note to Sir Edward Grey “Germany sent yesterday evening at seven o'clock a Note proposing to Belgium friendly neutrality, covering free passage on Belgian territory, and promising maintenance of independence of the kingdom and possession at the conclusion of peace, and threatening, in case of refusal, to treat Belgium as an enemy. A time limit of twelve hours was fixed for the reply. The Belgians have answered that an attack on their neutrality would be a flagrant violation of the rights of nations, and that to accept the German proposal would be to sacrifice the honour of a nation. Conscious of its duty, Belgium is firmly resolved to repel aggression by all possible means.” ... it should not be forgotten that on several occasion prior to above note to Grey on 3rd August several belgian politicians and militaries (including the King) had made it clear that Belgium would defend itself against ANY foreign force trying to encroach its territory. ... including french troops as well as britsuh troops btw..
|
|
nomommsen
Chief petty officer
Posts: 114
Likes: 90
|
Post by nomommsen on Jun 11, 2023 9:39:09 GMT
Had Berlin moved east against Russia then France would be obligated to declare war against Germany, but this would give Paris a headache – they could either violate the Treaty of London and invade Belgium or they could go through Alsace and Lorraine. Violating Belgian neutrality would risk angering London something that France could not afford to do. Going through Alsace and Lorraine would be the only option – thing is could France make it fast enough to seize control on German industrial heartland and better yet could they hold it. Fully agree with you on the first.
Regarding the second highlightened: neither and nor
Terrain including the existing (Metz, Diedenhofen)as well as long prepared fortifications (prepared and fortified artillery positions at the Nied river in Lorrain as well as the Breusche river west of Strassburg) were very strongly against such the succsess of such a move. The then - perhaps - more available french troops ... would only raise the death-count per artillery shell fired as at narrow space there was there would then have been perhaps 15 Poilou instead of 7 Poilou being killed and wounded IOTL by the same shell. There weren't much more (if any) places and/or routes that could have been taken as there were taken IOTL.
|
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Jun 15, 2023 18:24:07 GMT
Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandschaft in Belgien-Brüssel August 2, 1914 (Very Confidential) RELIABLE information has been received by the German Government to the effect that French forces intend to march on the line of the Meuse by Givet and Namur. This information leaves no doubt as to the intention of France to march through Belgian territory against Germany. The German Government cannot but fear that Belgium, in spite of the utmost goodwill, will be unable, without assistance, to repel so considerable a French invasion with sufficient prospect of success to afford an adequate guarantee against danger to Germany. It is essential for the self-defence of Germany that she should anticipate any such hostile attack. The German Government would, however, feel the deepest regret if Belgium regarded as an act of hostility against herself the fact that the measures of Germany's opponents force Germany, for her own protection, to enter Belgian territory. In order to exclude any possibility of misunderstanding, the German Government make the following declaration: -- 1. Germany has in view no act of hostility against Belgium. In the event of Belgium being prepared in the coming war to maintain an attitude of friendly neutrality towards Germany, the German Government bind them selves, at the conclusion of peace, to guarantee the possessions and independence of the Belgian Kingdom in full. 2. Germany undertakes, under the above-mentioned condition, to evacuate Belgian territory on the conclusion of peace. 3. If Belgium adopts a friendly attitude, Germany is prepared, in cooperation with the Belgian authorities, to purchase all necessaries for her troops against a cash payment, and to pay an indemnity for any damage that may have been caused by German troops. 4. Should Belgium oppose the German troops, and in particular should she throw difficulties in the way of their march by a resistance of the fortre sses on the Meuse, or by destroying railways, roads, tunnels, or other similar works, Germany will, to her regret, be compelled to consider Belgium as an enemy. In this event, Germany can undertake no obligations towards Belgium, but the eventual adjustment of the relations between the two States must be left to the decision of arms. The German Government, however, entertain the distinct hope that this eventuality will not occur, and that the Belgian Government will know how to take the necessary measures to prevent the occurrence of incidents such as those mentioned. In this case the friendly ties which bind the two neighbouring States will grow stronger and more enduring. I am unable to determine the source for this ‘reliable information’. The French Plan XVII was to have La cinquième armée (5e armée) invade Germany through Belgian territory, but I doubt this was the basis for the claim made in the note dated 2 August 1914. Mark Stout article on warontherocks states that the information was probably false. warontherocks.com/2014/08/warchives-germanys-violation-of-belgian-neutrality-in-1914/Well ... the document shown (in some ... improvable translation with adding non-existant elemts like :(Very Confidential)" or highlightening the word "RELIABLE") on the link from the site you've linked to was sent from Berlinto Herrn v.Below-Saleske in a sealed envelope by personal messenger on 29th July stemming from a draft by Moltke the Minor being reworked by officials of the foreign affairs secretariate as well as the office of the chancellor for some days prior to.
But ... Moltke the Minor had no information at all of french military operations and plans ASIDE only his very own considerations of war gaming the situation. ... aka he invented it.
And I can only seconde stevep that Below-Saleske in case of an "East First" campaign would have very likely been immediatly ordered to very literaly "burn" this envelope unopened. It would never have seen the light of Bruessels.
The Germans knew that moving against Russia would bring France into the conflict creating a second front to the rear putting the Ruhr Valley, Germany’s industrial heartland, in jeopardy. Berlin would have to deploy troops to the French border. |
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Jun 15, 2023 18:40:54 GMT
The Belgians response can be seen in the Belgian Legation’s note to Sir Edward Grey “Germany sent yesterday evening at seven o'clock a Note proposing to Belgium friendly neutrality, covering free passage on Belgian territory, and promising maintenance of independence of the kingdom and possession at the conclusion of peace, and threatening, in case of refusal, to treat Belgium as an enemy. A time limit of twelve hours was fixed for the reply. The Belgians have answered that an attack on their neutrality would be a flagrant violation of the rights of nations, and that to accept the German proposal would be to sacrifice the honour of a nation. Conscious of its duty, Belgium is firmly resolved to repel aggression by all possible means.” ... it should not be forgotten that on several occasion prior to above note to Grey on 3rd August several belgian politicians and militaries (including the King) had made it clear that Belgium would defend itself against ANY foreign force trying to encroach its territory. ... including french troops as well as britsuh troops btw..
The King of the Belgians sent a telegram to King George V: Remembering the numerous proofs of your Majesty's friendship and that of your predecessors, and the friendly attitude of England in 1870, and the proof of friendship she has just given us again, I make a supreme appeal to the Diplomatic intervention of your Majesty's Government to safeguard the integrity of Belgium. Great Britain had a legal obligation to protect Belgian neutrality. If necessary British troops may be allowed to defend Belgian territory. |
|
