Would a French invasion of Belgium in World War I have led to a guaranteed defeat for the Franco-Russian Alliance?

[Anadyr]

I had only first begun reading about France's Plan XVII recently, and as someone who's only had a passing interest in both World Wars my whole life, I was quite surprised to learn that France had the inklings of a plan to invade part of Belgium in order to gain offensive initiative over the British. Of course, as we know from OTL, the Germans crossed the Belgian border on August 4th, and that elements of the French high command who believed an offensive into Belgium was the best strategy, specifically commander-in-chief Joseph Joffre, were ultimately kept in check until that point. Ultimately, Britain would join the war after the German invasion of Belgium both triggered an 1839 treaty and more importantly, helped sway public opinion to a pro-war angle. The rest is history.

However, suppose that Joffre had been able to sway the right people in the French government to an invasion, or had been able to at least maneuver his way into having enough autonomy to launch such an invasion without being stopped from doing so. In this series of events, where French troops would have violated Belgian sovereignty before the Germans, it seems extremely unlikely the Britain would have been able to enter on the Entente side, given the reluctance of the Liberal Party and the British public as a whole to go to war, especially with the Home Rule Crisis brewing. While a British entry on the side of Germany is implausible (though it's fun to imagine a German/British wank scenario where they destroy France together), a WWI where the British don't participate, at least from the get-go, is likely a disaster for the French and Russians; one has to assume that a French invasion of Belgium goes like the ITL Battle of the Frontiers did, and from there on, a German push towards Paris without British troops opposing them on the field and without a blockade handicapping them is going to have that much more juice, even if it's not an immediate 1870-style success.

Regardless, what do you think: would a French invasion of Belgium have led to a guaranteed defeat for the French and Russians? I'm curious to see if there are angles I hadn't considered here. I've tried to find some threads on this from the past, but the ones I've seen have kind of been "meh" at best.

 

[John_Smith12]

Lol yep, I think the best scenario for France is that they outflank the German armies and threaten to cut them off before being bogged down by Belgian irregulars and exhaustion before being thrown back by Belgian-German counter offensive.

Looking at their performance I don't see how the French army could even make it the full distance of Belgium before the Germans yeet them back.

 

[Helmuth48]

It depends on what the German reaction will be. If Germany remains on the defensive, the British will regard the war as a French problem, which the French themselves started, and thus remain neutral. Then the French and Russians can never win this war.

But in the end, the British will always act in their own interests. That interest is first and foremost: no German naval base on the Belgian or French coast! And secondly, to maintain France as a great power. So if Germany does invade France, the British will probably still intervene on the French side.

An interesting question is whether the Belgians will open their North Sea ports to the HSF. This is directly against British security interests. A reason to declare war on Belgium and Germany and to occupy these ports preventively?

I asked a similar question in this thread a while back: How will Belgium react to a French violation of its neutrality in 1914?

 

[NoMommsen]

I had only first begun reading about France's Plan XVII recently, and as someone who's only had a passing interest in both World Wars my whole life, I was quite surprised to learn that France had the inklings of a plan to invade part of Belgium in order to gain offensive initiative over the British. Of course, as we know from OTL, the Germans crossed the Belgian border on August 4th, and that elements of the French high command who believed an offensive into Belgium was the best strategy, specifically commander-in-chief Joseph Joffre, were ultimately kept in check until that point. Ultimately, Britain would join the war after the German invasion of Belgium both triggered an 1839 treaty and more importantly, helped sway public opinion to a pro-war angle. The rest is history.

However, suppose that Joffre had been able to sway the right people in the French government to an invasion, or had been able to at least maneuver his way into having enough autonomy to launch such an invasion without being stopped from doing so. In this series of events, where French troops would have violated Belgian sovereignty before the Germans, it seems extremely unlikely the Britain would have been able to enter on the Entente side, given the reluctance of the Liberal Party and the British public as a whole to go to war, especially with the Home Rule Crisis brewing. While a British entry on the side of Germany is implausible (though it's fun to imagine a German/British wank scenario where they destroy France together), a WWI where the British don't participate, at least from the get-go, is likely a disaster for the French and Russians; one has to assume that a French invasion of Belgium goes like the ITL Battle of the Frontiers did, and from there on, a German push towards Paris without British troops opposing them on the field and without a blockade handicapping them is going to have that much more juice, even if it's not an immediate 1870-style success.

Regardless, what do you think: would a French invasion of Belgium have led to a guaranteed defeat for the French and Russians? I'm curious to see if there are angles I hadn't considered here. I've tried to find some threads on this from the past, but the ones I've seen have kind of been "meh" at best.

First:

ESPECIALLY regarding alternate history there is NO GUARANTEE of ANYTHING at all​

Then your search wasn't perhaps ... too thorough?
Aside the thread @Helmuth48 has started I had started a number by myself regarding this topic or similar.
And IMHO these discussions were far from "meh". ... rather hard and hot(test) fights of arguments and (too often also) beyond

You will find enough around here arguing no matter what (even if the sun doen't rise anymore) Great Britain would make war against Germany anyway.
There are as many that will argue that even without GB France and Russia would beat Germany anyway esp. if France acts first on Belgium what would "definitly" be seen with benevolence by England and/or that the belgians would (almost immediatly() join the frenmch adainst Germany.

... and ofc there are the ones arguing the exact opposite.

You won't find an unanimously consensus of this question on this forum (or anywhere) befor the hell freeze.
... and esp. no 'guarantee'.

 

[Glenn239]

I had only first begun reading about France's Plan XVII recently, and as someone who's only had a passing interest in both World Wars my whole life, I was quite surprised to learn that France had the inklings of a plan to invade part of Belgium in order to gain offensive initiative over the British. Of course, as we know from OTL, the Germans crossed the Belgian border on August 4th, and that elements of the French high command who believed an offensive into Belgium was the best strategy, specifically commander-in-chief Joseph Joffre, were ultimately kept in check until that point. Ultimately, Britain would join the war after the German invasion of Belgium both triggered an 1839 treaty and more importantly, helped sway public opinion to a pro-war angle. The rest is history.

Some corrections on this paragraph, from Joffre's memoires. The French army was not 'kept in check until August 4th'. What Joffre said was that in wargaming the problem the General Staff had concluded, (I think by 1912) that Belgian territory would be required for French objectives to become realistic. Specifically, although the Ardennes was not ideal terrain, that for any prospect of offensive success, an attack strictly along the border would be certain to fail. When Joffre reported these conclusions to Poincare, things get a bit murky. But what appears to have happened was that the French sounded the British and received the reply that a pre-existing French intention to invade Belgium might be extradordinarily embarrassing for the British government if discovered and published. Therefore, Joffre altered the mobilization plan to be flexible, where a final decision on Army group deployments did not have to take place until M+8 (I think it was Day 8). Formal French Army campaign planning, like how was done in other countries with the plans and exercises filed on record, this was not done in France. Campaign planning and exercises were split off into an informal domain run by the French army high command but independent of the French government in planning and in record keeping. I think it's pretty obvious why such a remarkable step was taken. Historically France called general mobilization on 1 August, meaning that no decision needed to be made on Belgium until August 9th, had Germany not invaded. According to Joffre, the variant mobilization which made operations in Belgium practically mandatory was made on August 2nd, before the Germans had made any demands of Belgium and before the French army had any fixed ideas on the German mobilization plan.

The British Cabinet had reviewed the 1839 treaty by the end of July and ruled that it would not dictate British policy in the crisis. The 1839 treaty was only of value to the British in the second matter you mention - swaying British public opinion.

However, suppose that Joffre had been able to sway the right people in the French government to an invasion, or had been able to at least maneuver his way into having enough autonomy to launch such an invasion without being stopped from doing so. In this series of events, where French troops would have violated Belgian sovereignty before the Germans, it seems extremely unlikely the Britain would have been able to enter on the Entente side, given the reluctance of the Liberal Party and the British public as a whole to go to war, especially with the Home Rule Crisis brewing.

A couple things to unpack there.

First, the variant mobilization Joffre called on the 2nd of August shifted the French 5th army northwards and inserted the French 4th army into the gap between 5th and 3rd armies, such that three French armies would finish mobilization facing neutral territory, (Belgium and Luxembourg). The implication of this is that the French government had authorized Joffre to do this on or before August 2nd. (In fact, I've always just assumed that in 1912 Poincare told Joffre he would get his wishes, but he needed to play pretend pattycakes so that the British could have their plausible deniability).

Secondly, the British had an entire war-entry scenario in play that had nothing to do with Belgium. This was the naval guarantee to France. Before the Germans actually invaded Belgium, there appears to have been a war party in London (Churchill) that was actively seeking to attack and sink the SMS Goeben under the pretext of protecting French shipping. Had Germany not invaded Belgium this naval narrative could have been made to serve the purpose.

Third, it's important how the British government actually functioned in 1914. The PM did not require a vote in the House to declare war, and in fact, there was no such vote. Parliament was simply informed of the new state of affairs and requested to vote war funding. The PM did require cabinet unity and the king to declare war, both of which were politically possible for him to get even without Germany invading Belgium.

While a British entry on the side of Germany is implausible (though it's fun to imagine a German/British wank scenario where they destroy France together), a WWI where the British don't participate, at least from the get-go, is likely a disaster for the French and Russians; one has to assume that a French invasion of Belgium goes like the ITL Battle of the Frontiers did, and from there on, a German push towards Paris without British troops opposing them on the field and without a blockade handicapping them is going to have that much more juice, even if it's not an immediate 1870-style success.

The British naval pledge was given to France without any condition, including their behaviour in Belgium. True, the French had declared just prior in a formal answer to the British that they would not invade Belgium, but the pledge itself made no reference to this and therefore, the pledge would remain even if the French had invaded Belgium.

An actual French invasion of Belgium with the historical German mobilization held with a refused right might have been an 1870's style catastrophe for France. It's different than the historical case in that the encirclement and destruction of the French left went from map fantasy to something that could really have happened, as Joffre sticks the 4th and 3rd armies' necks into the noose. As for the BEF, if Britain were neutral it may well mobilize and deploy to Belgium in August 1914, linking up with the Belgian army maybe on the Brussels-Antwerp axis.

Regardless, what do you think: would a French invasion of Belgium have led to a guaranteed defeat for the French and Russians? I'm curious to see if there are angles I hadn't considered here. I've tried to find some threads on this from the past, but the ones I've seen have kind of been "meh" at best.

The defeat of France? That's actually hilarious to think about WRT this scenario. Let's say France invaded Belgium and the British do as you imagine and stay neutral with loud declarations of outrage against Paris. Now, the Germans 7 armies strong hit Belgium like a tidal wave and defeat the French, carrying the front all the way through Belgium towards Paris. The British say to the Germans, 'you must evacuate Belgium because it is neutral'. The Germans tell the British to go pound themselves, they will occupy Belgium until the war is over. The British say to the French, 'you must agree that Belgium will suffer no annexations after the war'. The French reply that to be bound in such a way, the British will have to declare war on Germany immediately, and warn the British that if they are defeated, they may well be forced into a treaty with Germany in which Belgium is partitioned between France and Germany.

What are the British options here?

 

[tallthinkev]

British options?

They will be content to let the French, Germans, AH and Russia play silly games as long as it doesn't effect trade too much. If it does they would press for peace and become the peacemaker. They well may get involved if things get out of hand, or full on medieval, in Belgium or Greece. Even then they will be more like peacekeepers and charging both sides!

 

[arrestedcorn]

The biggest consequence would be that America would not be supporting the Entente, especially since France attacked a neutral country that did nothing to provoke them. W/out American financial aid and weapons, the Entente will go bankrupt at some point in the war.

 

[Michel Van]

Background info

Belgium is neutral Kingdom, who sovereignty is guarantee by 1839 Treaty of London .
means if someone invade Belgium, the British Empire oblige to intervene and help Belgium.

That was case as Germany invaded Belgium in 1914.

Now case that France Invade Belgium first, to counter German invasion
This put British Government in allot problems
They oblige to intervene and help Belgium, but same time help France against Germany.
The Belgium Government will insist that french troops are remove from neutral Kingdom.

Now what happen next dependent on Senario

1. Germany invade Belgium, history continue like OTL, except that Belgium French relationship is very cold for years.

2. Germany Invade Russia first and take defence on West front, now that create dilemma for British Government.
They oblige by 1839 treaty, to remove the french invader from Belgium, by force if necessary.
Here depends how the politician can defuse the Situation

In worst case senario face France a two front war: one against Germany and other British in behalf of Belgium.

 

[Glenn239]

British options?

They will be content to let the French, Germans, AH and Russia play silly games as long as it doesn't effect trade too much. If it does they would press for peace and become the peacemaker. They well may get involved if things get out of hand, or full on medieval, in Belgium or Greece. Even then they will be more like peacekeepers and charging both sides!

If trade were the plan then obviously the British would have remained neutral after Germany invaded Belgium. If Belgium is the plan, then even if France invades Belgium first, it will be the Germans that will occupy Belgium during the war, and once the war is over, the British will have no means at all to remove the Germans.

 

[Glenn239]

The biggest consequence would be that America would not be supporting the Entente, especially since France attacked a neutral country that did nothing to provoke them. W/out American financial aid and weapons, the Entente will go bankrupt at some point in the war.

The US intervention in the war was in response to Americans being killed by German U-boats in international waters. This was from 1915 and onwards, a point in time in which Germany would be in full occupation of Belgium regardless of whether Germany or France had invaded Belgium first. The French by 1915 would agree to anything the Americans demanded WRT Belgium. The Germans would not.

 

[Glenn239]

Background info

Belgium is neutral Kingdom, who sovereignty is guarantee by 1839 Treaty of London .
means if someone invade Belgium, the British Empire oblige to intervene and help Belgium.

That was case as Germany invaded Belgium in 1914.

Two things. First, the 1839 Treaty was a collective one, where no party had a clearly defined role in the case of one of the other signatories defecting from it. Should France have invaded Belgium, this would have occurred south of the Meuse in the Ardennes, in the region of Belgium where, by one of those happy coincidences of history that were probably not, the Belgium army did not mobilize even a single one of its battalions.

Second, my post above. A French mobilization towards the Ardennes did not have to commence until August 9th at the latest. A French violation of Belgian neutrality did not have to occur until at least 10 days after that, somewhere around the 18th-20th of August. The SMS Goeben was in the Western Mediterranean on 4 August, 1914. Churchill was overruled by Cabinet on the 4th, not because sinking the German squadron was the wrong thing to do, but because the ultimatum to Germany had already been issued. If Germany does not invade Belgium, then there is no British ultimatum on the 4th, Churchill is not overruled, Souchon is engaged and destroyed by Milne, the British declare war on Germany, and by the time the French are ready to move into the Ardennes, the British have been at war with Germany for 2 weeks. Will the British undeclare war? Not a chance. By sinking the Goeben, the British give the French the green light to enter the Ardennes.

1. Germany invade Belgium, history continue like OTL, except that Belgium French relationship is very cold for years.

2. Germany Invade Russia first and take defence on West front, now that create dilemma for British Government.
They oblige by 1839 treaty, to remove the french invader from Belgium, by force if necessary.
Here depends how the politician can defuse the Situation

In worst case scenario face France a two front war: one against Germany and other British in behalf of Belgium.

As above, the narrative and timing of the British naval pledge to France would give ample opportunity to the British to get around any diplomatic problems in Belgium because it gets Britain into a war with Germany faster than France needs to move into the Ardennes. That's why the naval pledge will have existed in the first place, obviously.

The worst case French scenario you suggest above is really not that bad - if faced with the alliance you suppose they will ask for peace immediately and Britain will switch sides on the spot. France will avoid 1.5 million dead. The worst case for Britain is that if faced with this type of British betrayal, the French will abandon their alliance with Russia and ally with Germany because they have no choice. The High Seas Fleet would be a bit more of a threat to British LOC if based in Brest, no?

 

[tallthinkev]

If trade were the plan then obviously the British would have remained neutral after Germany invaded Belgium. If Belgium is the plan, then even if France invades Belgium first, it will be the Germans that will occupy Belgium during the war, and once the war is over, the British will have no means at all to remove the Germans.

Britain said it would protect Belgium and it did, trade comes second if you have given your word

 

[Glenn239]

Britain said it would protect Belgium and it did, trade comes second if you have given your word

That's nice.

The French have invaded Belgium first and the British, outraged, have declared their neutrality. The French subsequently lose the Battle of the Ardennes when the German 1st and 2nd armies - refused on the right to allow Joffre to stick his neck in the noose - shattered the French 5th Army and closed the trap from the north on the now surrounded French 3rd and 4th Armies. The Germans have occupied Liege against the will of the Belgian government and have just marched through Brussels in pursuit of the hastily withdrawing French 5th Army. France has lost the war as 3rd and 4th Armies surrender in the Ardennes, Germany has occupied Belgium, and now the British ask the Germans to withdraw? It will take Bethmann several hours just to stop laughing. Perhaps the British should send their six divisions to the continent against 70 German divisions to make it so?

Posters tend to assume the British in 1914 were the United States of America in 1941. Or, perhaps more accurately, like the British actually were in 1870 when Prussia and France obeyed British edicts on Belgium for fear of the consequences. But this was not how the British themselves saw the situation by 1914. They viewed Germany as a powerhouse capable of overcoming France and Russia, the aftermath of which would leave both as reluctant German allies, just like how after Austria lost the war of 1809, both Austria and Prussia then became allies of Germany. The idea that with the French defeated and the Germans in Paris that the British would then be in a position to demand anything of Germany WRT Belgium, I don't think is one that would ever have occurred to Asquith or Grey, or to General Wilson. To them, regardless of any facts on the ground in Europe, if Britain failed to support France immediately, France was lost. And if France was lost, so too would go Belgium regardless of who invaded it first.

 

[matzeskatze]

against the will of the Belgian government

Germany has occupied Belgium

This both depends on the Belgian government, no? If the French move far enough north then it is Imo very possible that the Belgians declare war on them. That is certainly no alliance with Germany, but cobelingerents sounds about right to me.
And if that happend, would it be against the will of the Belgians that the Germans push out the French? And again would Germany in this case be seen as an occupier?

They viewed Germany as a powerhouse capable of overcoming France and Russia

Huh, and here I have seen several times the assertion that the British saw the Franco-Russians as the stronger side and made nice with them to have power in the negotiations... so milage on this may vary depending on the author.

after Austria lost the war of 1809, both Austria and Prussia then became allies of Germany

Poor Napoleon... Both Austria and Prussia have to bow to the big bad Germans... but I get what you mean. On the other hand, I find this assertion that Germany would be able to keep both France and Russia as "reluctant allies" somewhat questionable. Because the sheer nationalism in both would make it impossible.

 

[John_Smith12]

That's nice.

The French have invaded Belgium first and the British, outraged, have declared their neutrality. The French subsequently lose the Battle of the Ardennes when the German 1st and 2nd armies - refused on the right to allow Joffre to stick his neck in the noose - shattered the French 5th Army and closed the trap from the north on the now surrounded French 3rd and 4th Armies. The Germans have occupied Liege against the will of the Belgian government and have just marched through Brussels in pursuit of the hastily withdrawing French 5th Army. France has lost the war as 3rd and 4th Armies surrender in the Ardennes, Germany has occupied Belgium, and now the British ask the Germans to withdraw? It will take Bethmann several hours just to stop laughing. Perhaps the British should send their six divisions to the continent against 70 German divisions to make it so?

Posters tend to assume the British in 1914 were the United States of America in 1941. Or, perhaps more accurately, like the British actually were in 1870 when Prussia and France obeyed British edicts on Belgium for fear of the consequences. But this was not how the British themselves saw the situation by 1914. They viewed Germany as a powerhouse capable of overcoming France and Russia, the aftermath of which would leave both as reluctant German allies, just like how after Austria lost the war of 1809, both Austria and Prussia then became allies of Germany. The idea that with the French defeated and the Germans in Paris that the British would then be in a position to demand anything of Germany WRT Belgium, I don't think is one that would ever have occurred to Asquith or Grey, or to General Wilson. To them, regardless of any facts on the ground in Europe, if Britain failed to support France immediately, France was lost. And if France was lost, so too would go Belgium regardless of who invaded it first.

I agree with all of that except I feel like the Germans would take much longer to stop laughing. But yeah posters forget that Britain even at their most powerful was not a land power, Britain's power in the 18/19th century rested on the ability to fund the enemies of whoever they were fighting and to be unable to invaded by whatever European conflict was happening.

But yeah France Vs Germany only has one ending but France and Russia vs Germany and Austria Hungary really depends on what kinda leadership Russia has. A better run Russia could win the eastern front which could be enough to win the war. They had the numbers and the definitely had the industry to win such a conflict

Huh, and here I have seen several times the assertion that the British saw the Franco-Russians as the stronger side and made nice with them to have power in the negotiations... so milage on this may vary depending on the author.

So Russia was viewed as the "next big thing", their population was exploding, their economic output was on similar trajectory: every credible economist said that within 20-50 years Russia would be the global hegemon and German government and military command felt that such a Russia would do to them what Germany had done to France. Basically look the same way Europe/America look at China and India currently.

I personally hold the opinion that Russia could have handily won the Eastern front had they been better led, and a competent logistics system.