Alternate start to WWI?

[Tibi088]

There has been a lot of threads about one of the countries making a different, better decision at the start of WWI and how that would help them win. My question is what if all of them make the proposed better decisions, how do you think that would turn out?

The war starts from the same incident, only the military decisions are different. So the proposed PODs that came up here:
1. Germany goes with an East offensive. Belgium is not invaded.
2. UK stays out for the start.
3. France didnt suck Michel and starts the war with his warplane. The requirement to attack Germany simultaneously on the 14th day of mobilisation is removed.
4. Austria waits to determine Russian involvement in the war before mobilisation and goes with the Russia and Serbia warplan thus not messing up its mobilisation and early war plans. Potiorek without the forces to make the diversionary attack on northern Serbia decides to stick to the plan and take a defensive stance against Serbia.
5. Russia doesnt have to attack Germany with half formed forces in East Prussia as a requirement of the French alliance. Earlier Russia had plans for a deeper deployment OTL however both their impressive growth of army and the french would compell them for a more agressive stance than that. The french would still want to ease the german pressure on them which they think is coming so I think they would still want an aggressive Russia.

Not really being a military expert i came this far:
1. The germans would still beat the russian but the question is how badly without the Russian attack in East Prussia.
2. The french would have to go on the attack once their realize the germans are not coming. However Michel is more cautious than Joffre so he might not go straigt for the German trap between Metz and Straßburg. Or does he have no other option?
3. Austria would be the great winner and doesnt get humilated against Serbia. I also think they would do initially better against Russia but the number are against them on that front. Maybe not loose as badly in Eastern Galicia as OTL? Thanks to the german attack they are on the winning side in Poland.
4. Serbia too will have to go on the offensive against Austria after the Austrian attack fails to materialize. What would happen there?

Any other ideas?

 

[BooNZ]

3. France didnt suck Michel and starts the war with his warplane. The requirement to attack Germany simultaneously on the 14th day of mobilisation is removed.

In 1914 the French lack both the doctrine and heavy equipment to make much progress against German defenses. The best decision the French could make in the circumstances in sit on their hands, which essentially throws Russia under the bus.

5. Russia doesnt have to attack Germany with half formed forces in East Prussia as a requirement of the French alliance. Earlier Russia had plans for a deeper deployment OTL however both their impressive growth of army and the french would compell them for a more agressive stance than that. The french would still want to ease the german pressure on them which they think is coming so I think they would still want an aggressive Russia.

If the Germans send multiple armies east, the best possible Russian strategy would be to abandon the Polish salient altogether.

Not really being a military expert i came this far:
1. The germans would still beat the russian but the question is how badly without the Russian attack in East Prussia.

If the Russians (and the French) surrender the initiative, Germans can defeat the Russian armies in detail with superior firepower. If the Russians abandon the Polish salient, then at least the CP powers have to cope with logistics and the tyranny of distance.

2. The french would have to go on the attack once their realize the germans are not coming. However Michel is more cautious than Joffre so he might not go straigt for the German trap between Metz and Straßburg. Or does he have no other option?

As far as terrain, there were no good options for the French and less bad options were known to all. This was why Joffre coveted the Belgium Ardennes.

3. Austria would be the great winner and doesnt get humilated against Serbia. I also think they would do initially better against Russia but the number are against them on that front. Maybe not loose as badly in Eastern Galicia as OTL? Thanks to the german attack they are on the winning side in Poland.

If the Russians do not abandon the Polish salient, they are going to need more than the 1st and 2nd armies to contain multiple German armies, so any numerical advantage the Russians might enjoy over A-H would be fleeting.

4. Serbia too will have to go on the offensive against Austria after the Austrian attack fails to materialize. What would happen there?

I don't think anything resembling a Serbian offensive could be considered optimal decision making.

 

[Tibi088]

What if Russia starts the war with a deeper deployment? The CP's strike in to Poland will only meet Russian fortresses and Russia avoids early defeats to her armies. Looking at it CP's line are gonna be a mess in Poland if the russian fortresses hadnt swiftly fallen and their logistic likely in the middle of being sorted out when the russian attack arrives. OTOH I dont think that OTL the russians managed to score any major victory against the germans - their bigger successes were all against the austrians. The russians will however meet well prepared defences in both Galicia and East Prussia so I think they will have not much success there.

 

[NM1]

If we assume the question means, a different beginning to the war rather than a different start altogether, then the obvious example, as cited above, is that the Germans do not follow the Schlieffen Plan and devote their main energies to knocking out the Russians and remaking the map in the east, say by deploying 1st and 2nd Armies, with other resources, say 4th Army is redeployed into defending the French attacks into the Saarland and towards the German industrial heartland, allowing the French to use up their offensive power trying to take and hold territory in the west, and maybe bully Luxembourg into denying the French access to their territory whilst hold the 5th Army in reserve, along with redeployed forces after Russia and Serbia are deal with, for a counter-strike. It has the advantage of destroying the Serbs and damaging the Russians whilst reasserting their ally Austria-Hungary's great power status as well, which is a geopolitical triumph.

Another option would be to change the time the outbreak of what happens, bring it up or down in-time: Down means having Franz Ferdinand and his wife survive their insane trip to Sarajevo or to choose to attend on another day thus preserving their lives. A-H is still A-H and Conrad von H and Apis are still Conrad von H and Apis, so it is inevitable that the Serbs and Austrians find something else to fight about eventually or try again at a different time and succeed.

If we were to bring the outbreak forward a bit, perhaps Willy does something else outrageous in the years just preceding or makes the Moroccan Crisis in 1905 infinitely worse than it was in reality. He had a talent for putting his foot in his mouth after-all. Another option is that the Russo-Japanese war escalates in 1905, the Russians say sink that British trawler and a few other things happen, the Entante is very new and fragile, and draws in the Great Powers.

One other possible POD is, I confess, JUST on the wrong side of the 1900 cut-off, but given that the conflict would likely run on into 1900, I would beg your indulgence. I'm thinking of an escalation in the Fashoda incident in the autumn of 1898 where the UK and France faced off over African colonies. If a colonial conflict where to break-out say in the October, the French could very easily give aid to the Boers in South Africa (who are about a year from rebelling IRL) and support African kings who wish to depose the British such as the Ashanti in what is now Ghana for example, in order to weaken the British. This could escalate into full-scale violence in several places with shared borders, in North, West and Central Africa, South East Africa using Madagascar as a base to raid from, in the Guianas or along the small section of shared border between Laos and Burma. This could escalate quickly into a Naval conflict in the Caribbean and Mediterreanan and along the shared Suez Canal, with serious implications for international trade. Given family ties and recent history against France, as well as sensing an opportunity to nab some spoils at French expense, the Germans may well side with the UK. Supporting the UK fits within the established German policy of isolating France. The Franco-Russian Alliance dated from 1892, so is in effect. It seems likely that Russia would at least threaten to mobilise in defence of France if Germany announced its intentions to intervene. Over the course of the winter of 1898-1899, a disagreement over one site (now Kodok, South Sudan) and control over the Upper Nile valley, could easily esclate into a World War by the summer of 1899. It's no less nutty than the murder of one central European royal, just a different kind of nutty....

 

[Tibi088]

If we assume the question means, a different beginning to the war rather than a different start altogether, then the obvious example, as cited above, is that the Germans do not follow the Schlieffen Plan and devote their main energies to knocking out the Russians and remaking the map in the east, say by deploying 1st and 2nd Armies, with other resources, say 4th Army is redeployed into defending the French attacks into the Saarland and towards the German industrial heartland, allowing the French to use up their offensive power trying to take and hold territory in the west, and maybe bully Luxembourg into denying the French access to their territory whilst hold the 5th Army in reserve, along with redeployed forces after Russia and Serbia are deal with, for a counter-strike. It has the advantage of destroying the Serbs and damaging the Russians whilst reasserting their ally Austria-Hungary's great power status as well, which is a geopolitical triumph.

Another option would be to change the time the outbreak of what happens, bring it up or down in-time: Down means having Franz Ferdinand and his wife survive their insane trip to Sarajevo or to choose to attend on another day thus preserving their lives. A-H is still A-H and Conrad von H and Apis are still Conrad von H and Apis, so it is inevitable that the Serbs and Austrians find something else to fight about eventually or try again at a different time and succeed.

If we were to bring the outbreak forward a bit, perhaps Willy does something else outrageous in the years just preceding or makes the Moroccan Crisis in 1905 infinitely worse than it was in reality. He had a talent for putting his foot in his mouth after-all. Another option is that the Russo-Japanese war escalates in 1905, the Russians say sink that British trawler and a few other things happen, the Entante is very new and fragile, and draws in the Great Powers.

One other possible POD is, I confess, JUST on the wrong side of the 1900 cut-off, but given that the conflict would likely run on into 1900, I would beg your indulgence. I'm thinking of an escalation in the Fashoda incident in the autumn of 1898 where the UK and France faced off over African colonies. If a colonial conflict where to break-out say in the October, the French could very easily give aid to the Boers in South Africa (who are about a year from rebelling IRL) and support African kings who wish to depose the British such as the Ashanti in what is now Ghana for example, in order to weaken the British. This could escalate into full-scale violence in several places with shared borders, in North, West and Central Africa, South East Africa using Madagascar as a base to raid from, in the Guianas or along the small section of shared border between Laos and Burma. This could escalate quickly into a Naval conflict in the Caribbean and Mediterreanan and along the shared Suez Canal, with serious implications for international trade. Given family ties and recent history against France, as well as sensing an opportunity to nab some spoils at French expense, the Germans may well side with the UK. Supporting the UK fits within the established German policy of isolating France. The Franco-Russian Alliance dated from 1892, so is in effect. It seems likely that Russia would at least threaten to mobilise in defence of France if Germany announced its intentions to intervene. Over the course of the winter of 1898-1899, a disagreement over one site (now Kodok, South Sudan) and control over the Upper Nile valley, could easily esclate into a World War by the summer of 1899. It's no less nutty than the murder of one central European royal, just a different kind of nutty....

I want to keep the 1914 start of the war - diplomacy is fundamentally no different till 1914 august expect the french and russians not agreeing to a timed attack on the 14th day of mobilization against Germany. In this site on threads like this there is usually 1 POD - someone decides on a better strategy that gives it some advantages. What if all sides make better decisions: the germans go east first - much proposed and debated here, the french have Michele instead of Joffre and his mania of attack, Austria doesnt fuck up its mobilization plan, and Russia doesnt attack in to East Prussia with forces that didnt even finish to mobilize properly - and with a deep deployment avoid the first strike of the german forces.

1. As I see it Austria had the worst start OTL so they benefit the most from avoiding OTL mistakes.
2. France if the german attack in the west fails to materialize has to attack. Michele even if he doesnt throw away as readily the lives of his soldiers as Joffre cant really do anything else than attack the well prepared german defences.
3. The germans and austrians attacking Poland would punch air and only face the russian fortresses in the area. Im not sure how long these could hold. If long enough for the russian attack to arrive than the germans will have to face the whole of the russian army - who at TTL had time to form properly and are better rested - while part of their forces is bogged down besieging forts and their own logistic likely in the middle of being sorted out. I would say the russian win however OTL all the major victories the russians scored were against the austrians - not the germans so again im unsure. We know that before the war they owerestimated their inferiority in quality of the man against the germans and I dont think that overconfidence would disappear.
4. The russian attack on Galicia will however meet rested soldiers and prepared defences. My guess is an austrian collapse on their congress poland part of the front but who knows what happens after. Maybe the german can bail them out there?
5. Serbia too will have to move sooner or later - I dont think they will sit out the whole conflict looking at the austrians from afar. I dont see that ending well for them however.
6. Without Germans troops in Belgium London either doesnt enter the war or enters later. This might be crucial as Germany can trade longer with the world.

In the end: France cant do anything against Germany in the west: the front is short and well prepared. In the east however well the initial russian assault goes the CP's are much stronger and will sooner or later win. However than they are facing the same problem France does - short well fortified front. Would they try to pull a Schlieffen plan after they defeated Russia bolstered by austrian forces but risking british entry? Or try to make piece? Michele had a pretty good plan against that but its questionable if he would be in place after he couldnt do anything against the german defences.