France Adopts a Defensive Strategy in 1914

[futurist]

What if France would have adopted a defensive strategy from the very beginning of World War I in 1914?

Indeed, in this scenario, there would be no extremely humiliating French defeat at the Battle of the Frontiers.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? For instance, could we see Germany getting such a mauling that it will actually seriously consider suing for peace in either 1914 or 1915? Also, could the Ottoman Empire decide to remain neutral in World War I after it sees Germany get mauled by France?

[lordroel]

Jul 2, 2016 7:42:52 GMT futurist said:

What if France would have adopted a defensive strategy from the very beginning of World War I in 1914?

Indeed, in this scenario, there would be no extremely humiliating French defeat at the Battle of the Frontiers.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? For instance, could we see Germany getting such a mauling that it will actually seriously consider suing for peace in either 1914 or 1915? Also, could the Ottoman Empire decide to remain neutral in World War I after it sees Germany get mauled by France?

You mean France holding the front an just waiting for the Germans to come marching in.

[stevep]

Its something I've often wondered. French formal doctrine was still defensive until only a couple of years before. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_XVII Or rather, reading that defensive/offensive with plans to intervene in Belgium after an expected German invasion. Plan XVII was actually a reversal to earlier plans with the main weight against the common Franco-German frontier, despite the heavy fortifications there.

If France was following the previous plan then it would have intervened fairly heavily in Belgium once the Germans invaded. You wouldd probably have had encounter battles somewhere in south/central Belgium but hopefully with the French quickly moving to a tactical defensive, especially once they realised how much of the German army they were facing.

This would have had huge advantages for the French. While they still rely more heavily on older conscripts and reserves than the Germans [due to their lower population] and have other problems, like the notoriously visible uniform a defensive stance against a German army that is commited to frontal assaults would mean heavy losses but markedly heavier losses for the Germans. The famous French 75, which was too light for trench warfare but accurate and fast firing would have been lethal against packed troops advancing in the open.

I would suspect that the French might be forced back some way but suspect that far less of NE France would be occupied and probably much of northern Belgium would have stayed free of German occupation as well. French losses might be nearly as heavy as OTL because they would be facing the bulk of the German army markedly closer to their supply lines but I think German losses would be much heavier than OTL.

I doubt it would end the war quickly, although it might lead to a compromise peace with some German concessions. However think more likely the war would go on, albeit in a better position for the allies. The Ottomans might still join the central powers or possibly stay neutral, in which case the war ends earlier and probably the Romanovs survive. The war will still be very bloody but not as much as OTL.

This entire line of assumpts relies on the Germans still launching a massive attack through Belgium. If they were to decide on a defensive stance in the west and commit their main forces to supporting Austria against Russia things would be vastly different of course.

[lordroel]

Jul 2, 2016 13:55:31 GMT stevep said:

Its something I've often wondered. French formal doctrine was still defensive until only a couple of years before. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_XVII Or rather, reading that defensive/offensive with plans to intervene in Belgium after an expected German invasion. Plan XVII was actually a reversal to earlier plans with the main weight against the common Franco-German frontier, despite the heavy fortifications there.

If France was following the previous plan then it would have intervened fairly heavily in Belgium once the Germans invaded. You wouldd probably have had encounter battles somewhere in south/central Belgium but hopefully with the French quickly moving to a tactical defensive, especially once they realised how much of the German army they were facing.

This would have had huge advantages for the French. While they still rely more heavily on older conscripts and reserves than the Germans [due to their lower population] and have other problems, like the notoriously visible uniform a defensive stance against a German army that is commited to frontal assaults would mean heavy losses but markedly heavier losses for the Germans. The famous French 75, which was too light for trench warfare but accurate and fast firing would have been lethal against packed troops advancing in the open.

I would suspect that the French might be forced back some way but suspect that far less of NE France would be occupied and probably much of northern Belgium would have stayed free of German occupation as well. French losses might be nearly as heavy as OTL because they would be facing the bulk of the German army markedly closer to their supply lines but I think German losses would be much heavier than OTL.

I doubt it would end the war quickly, although it might lead to a compromise peace with some German concessions. However think more likely the war would go on, albeit in a better position for the allies. The Ottomans might still join the central powers or possibly stay neutral, in which case the war ends earlier and probably the Romanovs survive. The war will still be very bloody but not as much as OTL.

This entire line of assumpts relies on the Germans still launching a massive attack through Belgium. If they were to decide on a defensive stance in the west and commit their main forces to supporting Austria against Russia things would be vastly different of course.

Maybe the Germans thinking that the French go on the defensive will do the same and focus on knocking russia out of the War, if the French do nothing the British will not go on the offensive alone if Belgium is not invaded.

[stevep]

Kocking Russia out of the war when its on the defensive would be a lot more difficult than OTL. However it would pose a serious political problem for France as if Russia was being invaded it couldn't really sit on the defensive. In that case France might have to consider either an attack on Germany directly or even via Belgium itself.

If Germany goes east without attacking Belgium its uncertain whether and how quickly Britain would get involved. Because of concerns over German behaviour, especially at sea, Britain would feel favourable to the allies but a Liberal government especially may have problems getting a declaration of war. Especially if a few weeks or months in France breaches Belgium neutrality. Then just about anything could happen. Unlikely tat Britain would delcare war on France but if it found out about French plans I would expect a lot of pressure not to do it, although that might not be enough.

[futurist]

Jul 2, 2016 8:08:40 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 2, 2016 7:42:52 GMT futurist said:

What if France would have adopted a defensive strategy from the very beginning of World War I in 1914?

Indeed, in this scenario, there would be no extremely humiliating French defeat at the Battle of the Frontiers.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? For instance, could we see Germany getting such a mauling that it will actually seriously consider suing for peace in either 1914 or 1915? Also, could the Ottoman Empire decide to remain neutral in World War I after it sees Germany get mauled by France?

You mean France holding the front an just waiting for the Germans to come marching in.

Yes, pretty much.

[futurist]

Jul 2, 2016 15:10:13 GMT stevep said:

Kocking Russia out of the war when its on the defensive would be a lot more difficult than OTL. However it would pose a serious political problem for France as if Russia was being invaded it couldn't really sit on the defensive. In that case France might have to consider either an attack on Germany directly or even via Belgium itself.

Or via Switzerland--however unlikely that might be.

[deltaforce]

The French military was not equipped to fight a defensive conflict. Even with World War I it still took the French years to get modern heavy artillery in service. The French 75 mm field cannon was one of the most advanced artillery systems in the world when it was introduced, but even with the pressures of World War I it still took years for French forces to receive heavy artillery with recoil brakes. Until then they were equipped with de Bange cannons whose designs dated to the 1870s and 1880s. They not only lacked recoil brakes, but given their vintage they likely did not even use smokeless powder (Poudre B wasn't developed until the 1880s, entering service in 1886 in the 8mm Lebel cartridge used by the Lebel rifle). That would have greatly complicated French artillery operations.

[stevep]

deltaforce

I would say while useful heavy artillery would be less important in a defensive war against an opponent committed to early and rapid advances. [Since the entire German plan was built on the idea they would have to crush the French and take Paris before Russia moblised. The fact this was a false assumption doesn't change it was their view. ]

It was offensive operations, especially against heavily fortified positions such as in Alsace-Lorraine, that you really need advanced heavy artillery and the relevant doctrine for its use, neither of which France had in 1914.

Steve