France and Russia both adopt different strategies at the start of World War I

[WolfBear]

What if France and Russia would have both adopted different strategies at the start of World War I? Specifically, I am thinking of having France keep much more of its troops stationed near its Belgian frontier in order to more effectively protect France against any German threat in that direction while Russia decides to exclusively focus on Austria-Hungary at the start of the war with the aim of quickly knocking out Austria-Hungary while leaving the focus on Germany for later.

Anyway, how does the opening of World War I proceed in this scenario and what happens afterwards?

 

[Chiron]

If the Russians go all in on Austria Hungary and France openly moves on Belgium in such numbers, Britain has a much harder time selling its war and Germany by necessity must defend in the west and go East to prop up the AHE.

In which case, the German Strategy is made for them, take Russia out first, then turn West to deal with France. Which is what they should have done OTL.

 

[WolfBear]

If the Russians go all in on Austria Hungary and France openly moves on Belgium in such numbers, Britain has a much harder time selling its war and Germany by necessity must defend in the west and go East to prop up the AHE.

In which case, the German Strategy is made for them, take Russia out first, then turn West to deal with France. Which is what they should have done OTL.

But France won't actually enter Belgium itself until after the Germans do so; so, the Germans are still the first to violate Belgian neutrality, in which case the Belgians themselves will likely invite the French into their country to protect them from the Germans.

 

[stevep]

But France won't actually enter Belgium itself until after the Germans do so; so, the Germans are still the first to violate Belgian neutrality, in which case the Belgians themselves will likely invite the French into their country to protect them from the Germans.

A lot would depend on tactics and equipment but there would be some almighty clashes in southern Belgium and both sides going through the grinder. However its more favourable for the French compared to OTL simply because their not throwing the bulk of their forces, with grossly inadequate artillery support against fortified positions.

 

[WolfBear]

A lot would depend on tactics and equipment but there would be some almighty clashes in southern Belgium and both sides going through the grinder. However its more favourable for the French compared to OTL simply because their not throwing the bulk of their forces, with grossly inadequate artillery support against fortified positions.

Yeah, in our TL, the Battle of the Frontiers was a complete and total meatgrinder and bloodbath for France!

 

[sillygoose]

A lot would depend on tactics and equipment but there would be some almighty clashes in southern Belgium and both sides going through the grinder. However its more favourable for the French compared to OTL simply because their not throwing the bulk of their forces, with grossly inadequate artillery support against fortified positions.

The French largely didn't face fortifications, their losses were against German field armies. See the fighting in the Ardennes where they got slaughtered in a mobile battle against German armies attacking in the other direction. The French colonial divisions did pretty poorly there, despite being the most combat experienced troops the French had.. Terrence Zuber has an excellent history of the campaign that removes a lot of myths about the Battle of the Frontiers.

 

[Chiron]

But France won't actually enter Belgium itself until after the Germans do so; so, the Germans are still the first to violate Belgian neutrality, in which case the Belgians themselves will likely invite the French into their country to protect them from the Germans.

Ok thank you for clarifying that. Then seeing the concentration at the Belgian Borders, the Germans will move via Metz region and bypass the French Army entirely, forcing a race for Paris.

Or they decide to do a straight up shit kicking contest and use their superior artillery to wreck the bulk of the French Army en masse and possibly pocket enough of it that they can't utilize the delaying actions they did to exhaust the German Army.

 

[WolfBear]

Ok thank you for clarifying that. Then seeing the concentration at the Belgian Borders, the Germans will move via Metz region and bypass the French Army entirely, forcing a race for Paris.

Or they decide to do a straight up shit kicking contest and use their superior artillery to wreck the bulk of the French Army en masse and possibly pocket enough of it that they can't utilize the delaying actions they did to exhaust the German Army.

If the Germans try attacking through the Metz corridor, then they will create a huge salient through French territory, no?

 

[Chiron]

If the Germans try attacking through the Metz corridor, then they will create a huge salient through French territory, no?

Yes and no if they do it right. The main thing is to take Paris quickly and knock the French out of the fight.

 

[WolfBear]

Yes and no if they do it right. The main thing is to take Paris quickly and knock the French out of the fight.

They'd need to take Paris quickly without themselves being encircled by the French afterwards!

 

[Chiron]

They'd need to take Paris quickly without themselves being encircled by the French afterwards!

Which is why the forces on flank security will be vital to preventing that.

 

[WolfBear]

Which is why the forces on flank security will be vital to preventing that.

Fair point.

 

[raharris1973]

Better for the French and Russians, but if they told each other in advance, they'd be horrified they'd left the German border so un-pressured.

 

[WolfBear]

Better for the French and Russians, but if they told each other in advance, they'd be horrified they'd left the German border so un-pressured.

That might be true, but going after the weaker enemy (specifically Austria-Hungary) actually makes a lot more sense. Germany is a much tougher nut to crack, especially in one blow. Of course, you might very well not be able to defeat A-H in one blow either, but the shock that you could deal A-H would probably be more severe than the shock that you could deal Germany.

 

[stevep]

Yes and no if they do it right. The main thing is to take Paris quickly and knock the French out of the fight.

Your talking about a sickle cut type attack, but through a major defensive position and without armour or a powerful air arm trained in ground support. That sounds distinctly risky.

 

[Chiron]

Your talking about a sickle cut type attack, but through a major defensive position and without armour or a powerful air arm trained in ground support. That sounds distinctly risky.

Considering the Belgian Forts proved no real obstacle and the Germans actually have grenades and man portable motors plus a more modern and mobile artillery arm than the French, they should have no problems punching through Verdun if they advance via the Metz route and once through, the French pretty much must fall back to protect Paris or risk a straight up shit kicking contest on open fields where the Germans can utilize their superior artillery to maximum effect.

 

[bintananth]

But France won't actually enter Belgium itself until after the Germans do so; so, the Germans are still the first to violate Belgian neutrality, in which case the Belgians themselves will likely invite the French into their country to protect them from the Germans.

The Belgians had a neutrality guarantee from Britain. Germany or France entering Belgium irritates the Brits and the Brits did have permission to enter and help defend Belgium from either.

 

[sillygoose]

That might be true, but going after the weaker enemy (specifically Austria-Hungary) actually makes a lot more sense. Germany is a much tougher nut to crack, especially in one blow. Of course, you might very well not be able to defeat A-H in one blow either, but the shock that you could deal A-H would probably be more severe than the shock that you could deal Germany.

Except if they tried to goon the Austrians they'd just deploy defensively as had originally been intended. That means using Przemysl and the San river as well as the fortified bridgeheads as intended, which is a huge problem for the Russians as they did not have rail lines into Galicia and IOTL that was the logistical leash that kept them from potentially ending the war in 1914. It was helpful defensively, but really bad for offensive operations. If they just deployed in Central Poland instead then they also run into the rail gauge problem, German eastern wall fortresses, and of course the Carpathians, which if the Austrians were really concerned they could fall back to and fortified the passes with their intact pre-war army. Goodbye numerical advantages and all logistics. So then the Russians have to go through Germany which runs into the aforementioned logistical and fortress issues.

Russia splitting their attention IOTL was what induced Conrad to make his mistake of attacking the way he did, though it nearly worked. Without that failure though the Russians likely wouldn't have been able to pull off much if they had to chase an enemy fleeing from them instead, as it would result in their achielles heel (logistics for a huge army) sabotaging their effort.

 

[WolfBear]

Except if they tried to goon the Austrians they'd just deploy defensively as had originally been intended. That means using Przemysl and the San river as well as the fortified bridgeheads as intended, which is a huge problem for the Russians as they did not have rail lines into Galicia and IOTL that was the logistical leash that kept them from potentially ending the war in 1914. It was helpful defensively, but really bad for offensive operations. If they just deployed in Central Poland instead then they also run into the rail gauge problem, German eastern wall fortresses, and of course the Carpathians, which if the Austrians were really concerned they could fall back to and fortified the passes with their intact pre-war army. Goodbye numerical advantages and all logistics. So then the Russians have to go through Germany which runs into the aforementioned logistical and fortress issues.

Russia splitting their attention IOTL was what induced Conrad to make his mistake of attacking the way he did, though it nearly worked. Without that failure though the Russians likely wouldn't have been able to pull off much if they had to chase an enemy fleeing from them instead, as it would result in their achielles heel (logistics for a huge army) sabotaging their effort.

What ultimately caused Conrad to fail in Galicia?

 

[sillygoose]

What ultimately caused Conrad to fail in Galicia?

Sending 2nd army to Serbia first. The delay in shifting them to Galicia forced 3rd army to face two Russian armies alone. So 4th army had to be diverted from its near total victory at Kamorov (sp?) and let the Russian 5th army live to fight another day...that day being when the 4th Austrian was engaged with another Russian army and caused a route back to the Carpathians. 2nd Austrian when it showed up got caught in the flight to the San river and wasn't able to alter the situation except put a floor on how bad the defeat was.

This thread on AH.com is a good alternative history scenario covering what if 2nd army went to Galicia instead:

Conrad Waits: a better Austro-Hungarian Eastern Front (v 2.0)

I've decided to rewrite my original version of this TL, so I'm going to start a new thread. I'll keep the original information that is still applicable here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=174905 Just a bit of background: Norman Stone, author of the only decent...

www.alternatehistory.com