Own Goal: How the BEF destroyed the balance of power by winning WWI too fast for the Entente

[raharris1973]

What if the French, led by Joffre, at the beginning of the 'race to the sea' battles succeed in getting Sir John French, the Commander of the British Expeditionary Force, to attack into the gap between two German armies, with decisive effect?

Tommy Atkins wins the War by Christmas [Operational concept and explanation battlefield outcome credited to, and quoted from @david Flin from Alternatehistory.com, nickname is mine]

At the start of the Race for the Sea, a huge gap opened up between the German First and Second army, with the BEF in perfect position to go into that gap. Joffre had asked the BEF to move forward, but French sat on his thumbs, and the chance was lost.

Had the BEF advanced, the German First Army would have been separated from the rest of the German forces. France had three armies north of the BEF; two to pin the First Army in place, and one to get around the flank. That leaves the German Second Army stuffed. It's either got to force a way through the BEF on broken terrain with artillery support far away in an unprepared attack against time, or it pulls back and leaves the First Army to get screwed.

If the Entente could see "the other side of the hill", things would have been done and dusted on 9 Sept. The French can get armies round the flank of the First Army and onto the supply lines of the German 1st to 5th Armies. No supplies means those five German armies quickly become POWs.

That pretty much wraps things up for Germany. The Western Allies move to liberate Belgium and push up against, and over, the German border. The Russians, even if stung in the forests and lakes of East Prussia, are advancing in Galicia, and with the lack of reinforcements and probable need to transfer some German forces west, the Russians are looking to be able to have another go at East Prussia and Silesia in the winter. Things in the colonial theaters are of course, off to an awful start for Germany, with its Pacific colonies gobbled up by Britain, Japan, and the Dominions.

Togo is grabbed. The Ottomans steer clear of joining the war, and the Italians quite possibly join the war.

I figure at a minimum, the Allied terms imposed on the Germans and Austrians will be:

France would get Alsace-Lorraine and Togoland.

Britain would expect naval restrictions on Germany, German South West Africa to South Africa and German New Guinea to Australia and Western Samoa to New Zealand.

Serbia presumably gets Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dalmatia.

Japan gets Tsingtao and the Mariana, Caroline, and Marshall Islands.

Russia would get at least eastern Galicia or all Galicia, plus Posen.

It is also possible for the endgame to stretch out much longer, with things extending to an occupation of Saar or Rhineland in the west, and East and West Prussia in the East, and Upper Silesia, and potentially the break-up of Austria-Hungary, along with the seizure of German Tanganyika and Kamerun, and the cession of north Schleswig to Denmark.
German militarists and revanchists in this quick defeat will have plenty of reasons to be angry at the Entente powers, like OTL.

However, unlike OTL, they will have fewer bases on which to argue that a) they weren't truly militarily defeated, and b) with just a small correction or two they would have one.

That's because in this timeline, unlike OTL, a) they never get so close to the channel in 1914, b) they never get so close to the channel and Paris *again* with their late war offensive in 1918, and c) they never come to see Russia as weak and degraded, because they never inflict the OTL defeats of 1915-1917 on it, reduce it to revolution, and impose the Brest-Litovsk treaty on it.

I'm not saying German peaceableness towards its neighbors is 100% guaranteed, but the German public, politicians and military leaders are made skeptical of big military plans and promises. And no future regime will contemplate an idea as outlandish as establishing Lebensbraum across the territory of a defeated Russia. Later German military planning about Russia will be focused on countering hypothetical future Russian attacks mainly.

With WWI over by Christmas, or mid-1915, if that's what it takes for the Entente to grind out a harsher settlement and for Germany to yield to it, many things are different in Europe and the world.

Social changes should be significantly less.

The role of women in the factories should be less. There may be less pressure for expanded franchise in Britain, on class *and* gender lines.

France will have changed more because its casualty rates will have been much higher. Those changes will have worked to mobilize industry more.

On the other side of the hill, Germany may have had more of a levee en masse while getting defeated, and its Prussian military establishment is getting discredited.

Russia has not been taken to any kind of breaking point.

-- The European powers will take a short-term breather after this war, but how long will the Entente victors stay cooperatively aligned?
For their part, the Russians' next ambitions are towards the Ottoman Empire.

Will the two Entente other powers accept Russian encroachment on the straits and Armenia, perhaps in return for their own shares of compensation at Ottoman expense, as the price great power comity? Or will Britain and France instinctively oppose Russian advances against the Ottomans, reviving the old Crimean War coalition?

Or, will the UK and France move in opposite directions, with the UK taking an anti-Russian, pro-Ottoman stand, but France staying pro-Russian? Or vice versa?

Will any of the Entente members seek to make a meaningful rapprochement with Germany and make the offer a good one for Germany?

EmperorPenguin (user from Historum.com) said:
With a rapid Entente victory (and your scenario means Germany is utterly destroyed by the end of September 1914):

France will take the Rhineland.

Russia will dismantle Austria because no one will be able to stop her. She's also likely to take the Oder line

Britain is irrelevant to a peace treaty. Her six divisions will carry no weight against the 200 plus Franco Russian divisions

The only limiting factor in the Franco-Russian annexations would be to keep a buffer between the two of them. Russia would want Germany strong enough to defeat France but hopeless against a Franco-Russian coalition.

In that scenario: Germany would seek to be on good terms with Russia to prevent an attack while France would need Russia in a war with Germany. Not sure if Russia can pull that one off

Nicholas never had much ambition towards the Ottoman Empire. His policy had always been to leave the Ottomans alone as long as the straits were open for commerce and closed to foreign warships. He flat out told Salisbury he wouldn't occupy Armenia even if the powers gave him a mandate to do it.

See no reason for that to change.

I also wonder what Russia's foreign policy posture toward France, Britain, and Persia would be.

EmperorPenguin said: Depends on how strong Germany is. If its strong enough to threaten France but hopeless against the Franco-Russians, Russia will be quite nasty to the British

Who would the French prioritize having the best relations with, the Russians, or the British?

EmperorPenguin said: Again, how strong is Germany? Do they still need the Russians (who are far more reliable and effective against the Germans)? Then Russia rules Europe

Who would the British prioritize having the best relations with, the French, the Russians, or....the defeated Germans?

EmperorPenguin said: What can Britain offer the Germans? Austria wasn't enough to defeat Russia and France. Britain will never be able to put an army into Europe large enough and fast enough to stop Russia and France

Will Italy walk away a fully satisfied power, or will it feel blocked? If so, by whom?

EmperorPenguin said: Italy might get pretty much all she wants. Her enemy was Austria and Russia had only minimal conflicts with Italy over Serbian expansion in the Balkans (the Russians wanted Serbia to have a port that Russia could use)

Italy could be useful against either Britain or France.

Britain and France will need all the help they can get against the now vastly more powerful Russians. So they might be inclined to give Italy everything
In a short war: Russia will be stronger, France should be much stronger. Italy and Britain will be greatly weakened as their status depended more on their diplomatic position than their military might.

[raharris1973]

...discussion continues...

Marathag (user from Historum.com) said: UK wouldn't much care for a French and Russian dominated Europe, either, and for the same reasons they didn't want to see German supremacy.
That effects the post-War era for relations.

EmperorPenguin said: That might be true but the thread assumes Germany and Austria are utterly destroyed militarily by the end of September.

Britain can do nothing against the Franco-Russian Alliance. Germany and Austria fielded close to 150 divisions. Britain had six. France and Russia will laugh at the British if they want anything

And France and Russia now have the Austrian and German navies to add to their own. There's a reason Morley asked "What if the Russians win?"

Because if they do want to get violent, Britain loses.

The British are going to have to do something to protect themselves. Their options aren't that great:

Russia is the main threat to India. Unfortunately for Britain, Russia is free from an attack in the West. She can now build her railroads to the East. Even worse, the internal combustion engine is coming of age. For the first time in the modern era, an invasion of India is a real possibility

Might be able to ally with Japan but the Japanese are getting greedy themselves. Japanese expansion is likely to be opposed by the Americans. That's an unpleasant possibility for the British.

Japan really can't threaten the heart of Russia anyway. The most Japan could do (and it would be really hard to pull it off), is force the Russians to blow the Bakial bridges.

Might try France and Italy. Russia is big and bad. They might just be able to sweep across central Europe to Lisbon. You're looking at the Cold War with the Americans out and the Russians keeping capitalism. Really bad for all the powers of Europe.

And even if you push the Russians back, that just means the French get Germany. That's really bad for the British

Wow! Quite the dramatic conclusion.

So, I see that you lean heavily into the view that if the small but plucky BEF punches above its weight at the crucial point of German vulnerability, becoming the successful allied Schwerpunkt in the west in 1914, this glorious, British-executed and led feat of arms rather soon becomes a strategic 'catastrophic victory' for Britain, by smashing Germany so fast and easy that France and Russia, in an unbreakable alliance, are best able to take advantage, exploit German resources and the post-German strategic vacuum, and use it against Britain.

We should assume French and Russians would divide the German Navy and swallow it allow, and discount the possibility of it being scuttled like OTL, because for some reason the French and Russians will be able to police & control the crews better than the British.

I wonder how English language history in the UK would portray Britain's wartime and prewar policy and diplomacy in the Great War in this world. How America would interpret and perceive the Germans, British, French and Russians, and what the powerful Franco-Russian alliance's relations with the USA would be like in the decades after the Great War.

EmperorPenguin said:
The question for the post war order is Who does France align with?

If Britain, than the British have a shot. But are the French really going to abandon Russia?

The more I look at it, the harder that seems. If Germany can still threaten France, than France will need Russia far more than the British. The Russians just have the same interest in keeping Germany down while Britain doesn't. See British post war policy.

Do you really think the Russians would just let a Hitler grow that powerful? Or that they send a note telling him no arms and he's late on his reparation payments?

But now let's turn to another piece of the puzzle: Italy

Italy has had horrid relations with France for a generation and had good relations with Germany for many years. Her enemy was Austria and Austria is now gone.

If Italy allies with a rump Germany, than the two should be able to handle the French or at least make the French worry. The only way Germany is that weak, is if it is completely splintered into its various kingdoms.

But that leaves Russia completely safe from invasion. The only place to deploy the Russian army becomes the Himalayas, which really is awful for the British.

There are advantages to Britain of a Franco-Russian victory rather than a German one. In a German victory, Germany controls everything so there's no possibility of a split. You can invade Britain from Normandy but not from Russia- though the Russians would be unstoppable in India once the internal combustion engine allows them to move from rails

World War One can only severely damage Britain's position. Far more important than the Navy, it is Britain's ability to play off the two relatively equally matched alliances. With that gone, she better cling to France and hope for the best

[stevep]

   I'm doubtful of the initial conclusion.  I could see German 1st army being destroyed, causing a general German withdrawal but given the conditions of the time I can't see the allies being able to get so deeply behind the German position that the other units are destroyed.  They would be forced into a pull back to a more defensive position, which would relieve a good chunk of OTL occupied NE France and Belgium from occupation and plundering.  In the process a chunk of heavy equipment would probably be lost but as the war has already shown attacking reasonably orderly forces is bloody costly.  Also the further back the Germans are forced the shorter their supply lines and the longer the allies.  In this circumstances then either:

a)  You might get a quickly negotiated moderate EP victory where France gets Alsace-Lorraine back, Russia makes some gains at Austrian and possibly German expense and some colonial territory gets transferred.  I suspect this would be unlikely however as I can't see the German leadership accepting quickly that their screwed up.

b)  A longer war probably ending in 1916-17.  This would be an allied victory but with heavy strain all around.  The Ottomans might decide to stay out as then would Bulgaria while Italy would jump in more quickly.  Allied losses could well approach OTL war as they would be on the offensive pretty much all the time while the CPs are committed to the a defensive role.  The US might or might not become involved depending on long the war goes and also to what extent the Germans commit to USW or not.  I could see them doing this faster than OTL as the only real way of trying to undermine Britain.

  Even assuming that the CPs are defeated as quickly and completely as suggested then while it could be bad for Britain I'm doubtful it would be as bad as suggested.  For instance:

a)  Its still the French and Russians who have taken the bulk of the losses as the initial BEF committed - which is the Expeditionary Force not the entire army would take relatively few losses.  Similarly Britain would avoid the vast majority of the naval and merchant shipping losses of OTL and the vast bulk of the economic damage.

b)  I can't see the bulk of the German and Austrian fleets being handed out to the French and Russians especially.  The German fleet is more likely to be scuttled as OTL or end up in British hands.  The Austrian fleet is pretty weak. 

c)  I definitely can't see Russia ending up with a border on the Oder.  That's far too close to Berlin and would involve absorbing a lot of Germans.  Its something that would be bitterly opposed by the Germans and probably just about everybody else, including probably the French.  As that means both a lot more French dying as the Germans would fight to the bitter end and also it makes Russia seem too powerful.  The balance of power is a matter for all nations, not just the French.  If somehow Russia got their way on this then expect everybody to be wary of them and the Germans would definitely be revanchist.

d)  Similarly while I could see the Rhineland being demilitarized as OTL - talking about the lands west of the Rhine - I can't see a basis for a long term French occupation.  It would cause considerable economic, social and political problems for France.

e)  Given what I said about the balance of power France faces a choice.  It would have to decide whether to stick with Russia regardless of the French interests or whether to work with other powers to minimize Russian domination.  If it does the former then expect a defensive alliance of Britain, Italy and the Ottomans with Japan in the far east, all worried about Russian actions and intentions.  With Germany being a silent partner here which even with the most draconian measures suggested having occurred it will still be a significant industrial power with a fair amount of military potential.

  If Russia starts making too many demands and France feels threatened then it will find itself in the opposing camp.  Which will also prompt it to need some reconciliation with Germany as well.

  The sort of dramatic and very quick collapse of the CPs would pose a threat to Britain's security but only while France and Russia are united and that's going to be at the cost of French as well as British and other interests.

[Max Sinister]

The Allies had agreed that Russia would get Constantinople and the Straits, didn't they?

[stevep]

Jan 31, 2024 13:18:19 GMT Max Sinister said:

The Allies had agreed that Russia would get Constantinople and the Straits, didn't they?

  Yes that was agreed.  It would give Russia a significant boost but they still need to get any fleets or merchant shipping past the Aegean Islands then Malta and Gibraltar to get out of the Med.  Also it does mean that you can probably rely on both the Turks and Greeks being less than happy with this given their historical interest in the city as well as the location.

  Russia has potentially a great future but without major reforms its going to be severely handicapped by geography, autocracy and corruption for a while at least.  Plus even many of the Orthodox regions its likely to take over probably won't welcome Russification while the non-Orthodox are going to be even less happy. Depending on the interaction between France and Germany and with Alsace-Lorraine back and a massively powerful Russia dangerously close to Berlin it could be that reconciliation between the two might be easier than some think.

  A lot would depend on the shape of the war and the peace treaty that resulted.  How much damage and loss each power suffered both in the war and for the losers in the peace that follows plus possibly political turbulence.

[American hist]

The British Navy had the biggest fleet in the world, and combined with other allied ships It is surprising that the British didn’t do better in ww1 or make as good of use with their Navy during the great war. The British fleet should’ve pressed on the Juteland and possibly consider a naval invasion of Germany, or at least make sure their ships are staying busy. Well, unrestricted submarine warfare was effective. It didn’t last as long as when the Germans were not shooting ships no questions asked.

[stevep]

Jan 31, 2024 21:10:55 GMT American hist said:

The British Navy had the biggest fleet in the world, and combined with other allied ships It is surprising that the British didn’t do better in ww1 or make as good of use with their Navy during the great war. The British fleet should’ve pressed on the Juteland and possibly consider a naval invasion of Germany, or at least make sure their ships are staying busy. Well, unrestricted submarine warfare was effective. It didn’t last as long as when the Germans were not shooting ships no questions asked.

  There wasn't a lot ships can do against a continental economy.  The blockade, coupled with errors of management inside Germany did work but it took a long time.  Given the defences of the German coasts and a sizeable fleet an invasion of Germany by sea wasn't a practical possibility even if the British army had been willing to release men from France which they were very reluctant to do.  Plus in the age of modern railways without the capacity to suppress them that was available in WWII it would be easier for the Germans to commit more men to the landing beaches - as well as equipment and supplies - than the attackers.

  Not sure by pressed on the Juteland you mean the trapping of the German fleet after the battle - which nearly worked - or an invasion of neutral Denmark - which would have been a diplomatic disaster of the 1st order.

  The RN did keep very active, unlike the HSF a lot of the time, which may have been a contributing factor to the latter's eventual collapse in 1918.  However without suitable escort craft for merchant shipping and the willingness to deploy them little could be done against USW.  It should be noted that, as Lordroel's WWI day by day shows even after convoying was available for the trans Atlantic trade the far higher number of ships, British and others in European waters, for which escorts were not available due to the sheer number of ships suffered very heavily.

  There were definitely mistake in the deployment of naval power in WWI but while they could slowly wear down the CPs they couldn't have won a massive decisive victory, in terms of the wider war, by themselves.

[simon darkshade]

The RN’s approach wasn’t a bug, but a feature. The decision to shift to distant blockade rather than close blockade reflected the change in naval technology since the 1870s and the eclipse of the coastal attack fleet (see Send a Gunboat for further detail).

A naval invasion simply wasn’t a starter and indicates that there may be some benefit from some study regarding WW1 strategy and technology; the ability of the Germans to use internal lines of communication would render any landing substantially behind their lines as something that “would make the Charge of the Light Brigade seem like a sensible military exercise. That simply isn’t how you employ a fleet. Even if Jellicoe had won a Second Trafalgar at Jutland, the Grand Fleet was still not going to sail on Heligoland or the Jade.

As Steve says, the RN was very busy, across the world. This is another case of the idea being quite at odds with historical record.

[American hist]

Feb 1, 2024 9:51:58 GMT stevep said:

Jan 31, 2024 21:10:55 GMT American hist said:

The British Navy had the biggest fleet in the world, and combined with other allied ships It is surprising that the British didn’t do better in ww1 or make as good of use with their Navy during the great war. The British fleet should’ve pressed on the Juteland and possibly consider a naval invasion of Germany, or at least make sure their ships are staying busy. Well, unrestricted submarine warfare was effective. It didn’t last as long as when the Germans were not shooting ships no questions asked.

  There wasn't a lot ships can do against a continental economy.  The blockade, coupled with errors of management inside Germany did work but it took a long time.  Given the defences of the German coasts and a sizeable fleet an invasion of Germany by sea wasn't a practical possibility even if the British army had been willing to release men from France which they were very reluctant to do.  Plus in the age of modern railways without the capacity to suppress them that was available in WWII it would be easier for the Germans to commit more men to the landing beaches - as well as equipment and supplies - than the attackers.

  Not sure by pressed on the Juteland you mean the trapping of the German fleet after the battle - which nearly worked - or an invasion of neutral Denmark - which would have been a diplomatic disaster of the 1st order.

  The RN did keep very active, unlike the HSF a lot of the time, which may have been a contributing factor to the latter's eventual collapse in 1918.  However without suitable escort craft for merchant shipping and the willingness to deploy them little could be done against USW.  It should be noted that, as Lordroel's WWI day by day shows even after convoying was available for the trans Atlantic trade the far higher number of ships, British and others in European waters, for which escorts were not available due to the sheer number of ships suffered very heavily.

  There were definitely mistake in the deployment of naval power in WWI but while they could slowly wear down the CPs they couldn't have won a massive decisive victory, in terms of the wider war, by themselves.

All right, point taken! In what ways could the British Navy have perhaps been deployed to greater usage or have done better in this scenario that you’re asking? Well, the British military was fine I do recall the German army was better prepared during the outbreak.

[stevep]

Feb 1, 2024 14:45:23 GMT American hist said:

Feb 1, 2024 9:51:58 GMT stevep said:

  There wasn't a lot ships can do against a continental economy.  The blockade, coupled with errors of management inside Germany did work but it took a long time.  Given the defences of the German coasts and a sizeable fleet an invasion of Germany by sea wasn't a practical possibility even if the British army had been willing to release men from France which they were very reluctant to do.  Plus in the age of modern railways without the capacity to suppress them that was available in WWII it would be easier for the Germans to commit more men to the landing beaches - as well as equipment and supplies - than the attackers.

  Not sure by pressed on the Juteland you mean the trapping of the German fleet after the battle - which nearly worked - or an invasion of neutral Denmark - which would have been a diplomatic disaster of the 1st order.

  The RN did keep very active, unlike the HSF a lot of the time, which may have been a contributing factor to the latter's eventual collapse in 1918.  However without suitable escort craft for merchant shipping and the willingness to deploy them little could be done against USW.  It should be noted that, as Lordroel's WWI day by day shows even after convoying was available for the trans Atlantic trade the far higher number of ships, British and others in European waters, for which escorts were not available due to the sheer number of ships suffered very heavily.

  There were definitely mistake in the deployment of naval power in WWI but while they could slowly wear down the CPs they couldn't have won a massive decisive victory, in terms of the wider war, by themselves.

All right, point taken! In what ways could the British Navy have perhaps been deployed to greater usage or have done better in this scenario that you’re asking? Well, the British military was fine I do recall the German army was better prepared during the outbreak.

  Well there were definitely problems with tactics and with designs, especially for ammo protection and shells.  There are probably a number of others.  Also due to lack of spending on facilities the designs were limited in width especially which handicapped aspects of the armoured protection especially.  For tactics the most obvious is the removal of flash protection to speed firing rates, mostly associated with Beatty in the BC fleet, which contributed to the loss of three BCs at Jutland and the near loss of at least one other.  Also avoiding the tragic loss of the three armoured cruisers off the Belgium coast to a sub would have saved a lot of lives and the fact it was being referred to as the "Live Bait Squad" before it was lost makes clear there were people concerned about the situation.

  In terms of usage if Churchill was removed from the scene very quickly then a number of disaster's might have been avoided.  Not sure how responsible he was for the Coronel disaster but he definitely played a part.  Ditto with sending the Naval brigades to Antwerp.  It means a lot of sailors with a wide range of skills being used as lightly armed infantry with heavy casualties resulting. 

  The other fairly well know one was the reluctance to use convoying for escorting trans-Atlantic shipping.  There were problems with the shortage of DDs especially, given the rapid expansion of the battle fleet in the years up to 1914 but more could have been done earlier.  It still won't have avoided heavy losses in local shipping around the UK and the North Sea and possibly couldn't have been implemented in the Med either due to the multiple nations and sets of territorial waters involved.

  Earlier recognition of naval air power might have helped but how much that is prompted by hindsight. Its not going make a massive difference but could do some and the really big disaster was the forming of the RAF in 1918 and the loss of the RN's role in air power as well as their experienced staff.

[simon darkshade]

Feb 1, 2024 14:45:23 GMT American hist said:

Feb 1, 2024 9:51:58 GMT stevep said:

  There wasn't a lot ships can do against a continental economy.  The blockade, coupled with errors of management inside Germany did work but it took a long time.  Given the defences of the German coasts and a sizeable fleet an invasion of Germany by sea wasn't a practical possibility even if the British army had been willing to release men from France which they were very reluctant to do.  Plus in the age of modern railways without the capacity to suppress them that was available in WWII it would be easier for the Germans to commit more men to the landing beaches - as well as equipment and supplies - than the attackers.

  Not sure by pressed on the Juteland you mean the trapping of the German fleet after the battle - which nearly worked - or an invasion of neutral Denmark - which would have been a diplomatic disaster of the 1st order.

  The RN did keep very active, unlike the HSF a lot of the time, which may have been a contributing factor to the latter's eventual collapse in 1918.  However without suitable escort craft for merchant shipping and the willingness to deploy them little could be done against USW.  It should be noted that, as Lordroel's WWI day by day shows even after convoying was available for the trans Atlantic trade the far higher number of ships, British and others in European waters, for which escorts were not available due to the sheer number of ships suffered very heavily.

  There were definitely mistake in the deployment of naval power in WWI but while they could slowly wear down the CPs they couldn't have won a massive decisive victory, in terms of the wider war, by themselves.

All right, point taken! In what ways could the British Navy have perhaps been deployed to greater usage or have done better in this scenario that you’re asking? Well, the British military was fine I do recall the German army was better prepared during the outbreak.

This is drifting distinctly away from the thread topic here, of the consequences of an early Entente victory, so it might be an idea to split this off into a different thread.