What If Germany Won the Battle of the Marne in 1914?

I'll get to your mini-essay some time before I die. For now:

Nonsense. How did the military situation at the time even remotely permit such a partition? What would they do with all that French territory? How would they enforce it? What would be the political grounds for a regional partition of France?

The military situation did not permit such a partition, hence why they did not carry the plan out. Bismarck was keeping Louis-Napoléon in order to establish a sort of puppet state should France prove inexhaustible in her refusal to surrender after Sedan. The ideas Bismarck had were vague and never drawn out, but it was something along the lines of decentralizing France, reminiscent of how the early Capetians only had control over Île-de-France. (Whether or not that's how it actually would've turned out, I cannot say, because [a] it's not an issue that many historians seem to study, and "those butterflies in my temporal lobe / are always pecking at my Harry Turtledove node.")
 
The military situation did not permit such a partition, hence why they did not carry the plan out. Bismarck was keeping Louis-Napoléon in order to establish a sort of puppet state should France prove inexhaustible in their refusal to surrender after Sedan. The ideas Bismarck had were vague and never drawn out, but it was something along the lines of decentralizing France, reminiscent of how the early Capetians only had control over Île-de-France. (Whether or not that's how it actually would've turned out, I cannot say, because [a] it's not an issue that many historians seem to study, and "those butterflies in my temporal lobe / are always pecking at my Harry Turtledove node.")

Sounds like something impossible to enforce that would've required constant German intervention in French politics if they wanted to even remotely have a chance of making it work. Doesn't seem too likely and was probably a Bismarckian daydream/statement for reporters if true at all. Never heard of it myself. Where'd you see it?
 
I've also never heard of it.

The German Empire likely would've partitioned France entirely in 1871 had it not been for for the fact that it would've caused all the other powers in Europe to turn against them.

While Dachs has analyzed the military situation with his usual thoroughness already, I'd like to point out that Bismarck was enough of a political realist to know that, realistically, partitioning France was not an option, this also ignores the fact that it was the war of 1870-71 that created the Empire in the first place.

Why? The only reason the British were in the fight was because of France. No France, no Britain.

:confused: After reversing its appeasement policy, it was Britain which instigated the 'íf Poland be invaded, we declare war upon you' stance and indeed Britain declared war first (as no agreement could be reached with the then French government on a joint declaration), the French following suit.

On second thought, if you're referring to the First Worldwar here, that's also not very logical. Even assuming there wasn't in place the intricate coalition system that made possible the war, Britian could hardly have stood by watching Germany overrun Belgium - whose neutrality was guaranteed by both Western allies - and France. Already the violation of Belgian neutrality was a casus belli, let alone (the possible collapse) of France.

wrong. if that's the case, Britain would have negotiated peace with the Nazis in WWII.

Which is exactly what was their policy before WW II. However, once appeasement was reversed, there was no going back. However reluctantly, war preparations were already being implemented all during the thirties, all through the appeasement years.
 
Even assuming there wasn't in place the intricate coalition system that made possible the war, Britian could hardly have stood by watching Germany overrun Belgium - whose neutrality was guaranteed by both Western allies - and France. Already the violation of Belgian neutrality was a casus belli, let alone (the possible collapse) of France.
If France negotiates peace, that part is moot. Then all the British need to do is get the Germans to agree to some (likely token) reparations to Belgium in any peace agreement.
The Belgians were the official reason (and the one that guaranteed widespread support for the war), but the real reason was to defend the balance of power by protecting France.
 
On second thought, if you're referring to the First Worldwar here, that's also not very logical. Even assuming there wasn't in place the intricate coalition system that made possible the war, Britian could hardly have stood by watching Germany overrun Belgium - whose neutrality was guaranteed by both Western allies - and France. Already the violation of Belgian neutrality was a casus belli, let alone (the possible collapse) of France.
The violation of Belgian neutrality was not mentioned in the British ultimatum to Germany, the declaration of war, or Grey's famous speech to the Commons. This was done for two very good reasons.

The first was that Britain was not legally permitted to intervene militarily on Belgium's behalf by the terms of the guarantee; four-power consultations were required, and they had to be acting in concert. So any British attempt to justify their war by citing 'poor little Belgium' would have been quite illegal.

The second was that Belgium didn't figure into British calculations. It was not the fact that people were violating Belgian neutrality that induced the Cabinet to fight. Britain certainly would not have attacked France if the French had been the first to set foot on Belgian soil. British policy was aimed against Germany, in concert with France, and Germany alone. That lunatic Grey had got it into his head that the German Empire's industrial and military power was a 'violation of the balance of power', which as we all know is never a justification for anything because nobody actually defines what a 'balance' is. He had permitted that distasteful ass Henry Wilson, of the Imperial General Staff, to conduct secret staff talks with the French for years while at the same time baldly lying to the Cabinet about the talks and British commitments to France. Britain was already committed to France in the minds of Grey and, more understandably, of the governments of the French Republic; the only reason Grey prevaricated at all during the July Crisis was because he and Asquith knew they couldn't count on the Cabinet to abide by his secret-treaty backroom warmongering. And the only reason Asquith permitted Grey to issue the ultimatum is the revelation from Bonar Law that the Conservatives would support war (if it came to that; the Liberals were looking awfully iffy about the whole thing), based on the words of the double-agent Henry Wilson (!), who'd been passing information on the Curragh mutineers to the Conservatives, and who'd convinced Bonar Law that a civil war in Ireland was inevitable unless some foreign distraction was found to unite Britain and Ireland behind King and Country.

I am not making this up. It was really that bad. The original story of moral crusade to save the neutral small states of Europe fits in better with the wartime propaganda of the nasty Hun into a very pretty package that Barbara Tuchman could sell you in an admittedly well-written book, or that Fritz Fischer could use to contrast to the supposed German premeditated plot to invade the rest of Europe. Both total nonsense. The Entente Powers had a unified war plan for fighting Germany and Austria-Hungary (which was set on a tripwire - if any one of the Entente states went to war, the others would've mobilized within two to three weeks...German staffs knew this, yet the supposed 'Schlieffen Plan' had a six-week time table? :rolleyes:); the German and Habsburg general staffs were barely on speaking terms, and constantly misled each other into the bargain. Talk of a 'balance of power' was ridiculous, because Germany and Austria-Hungary had fleets and armies that were totally dwarfed by those of France and Russia alone, never mind the United Kingdom. And Russia's were still growing very rapidly...with British and French credit, of course.
The Belgians were the official reason (and the one that guaranteed widespread support for the war), but the real reason was to defend the balance of power by protecting France.
Oh, they weren't the official reason either. Just the newspaper-reason. It was easy to capitalize on that stuff after stories of atrocities started to filter through (and half of these were made up too, though to be fair there's a helluva lot of truth to the whole horrific tale). People get pissed about stuff like Louvain; they don't get pissed about the head duck and a hungry ostrich getting themselves shot.
 
I had things to say, but Dachs stole them, and better than I would have said them anyway. I distinctly remember having a conversation about that ridiculous Niall Ferguson counter-factual with him some months back.

Suffice it to say, it's not so much a matter of if Germany won the Battle of the Marne, but if they were able to avoid an unnecessary battle there and get the job done in far more important areas. If that happened, Germany would likely annex a little French territory - though hardly a partition - to secure its access to the sea, while forcing France and Belgium into its new customs union. Other nations would follow suit to avoid being economically ruined. Britain would sue for peace and probably find itself embroiled in a civil war on its home soil. Certainly in Ireland.

As for the Eastern Front, one would assume that even if an occupation of France were necessary Germany would be able to free up significantly more troops for operations in that theatre. I imagine Russia would follow suit with Britain and France in suing for peace - though on more favourable terms than France, seeing as it was still a threat - but it's Russia we're talking about here. They were always a little unpredictable.
 
Was the Kaiserliche Marine strong enough to launch an invasion of Britain?

If not, I don't see how the Jerries could win the war without getting the Yanks involved. The Brits would just stick to their fool-proof plan, chill on Britain until America (WW1) or the USSR (WW2) arrives.
 
Godwynn said:
Was the Kaiserliche Marine strong enough to launch an invasion of Britain?

No. Not at all.
 
The military situation did not permit such a partition, hence why they did not carry the plan out. Bismarck was keeping Louis-Napoléon in order to establish a sort of puppet state should France prove inexhaustible in her refusal to surrender after Sedan.
Where did you find this? Because as I recall, Louis-Napoleon was pestering Bismarck to do precisely that, and Bismarck deliberately snubbed him, at a time when it was still possible for him to effect an outcome with only a minimum of German aid. I find it hard to believe that after doing that Bismarck was 'keeping' Louis-Napoleon to establish a puppet state.
 
Was the Kaiserliche Marine strong enough to launch an invasion of Britain?

If not, I don't see how the Jerries could win the war without getting the Yanks involved. The Brits would just stick to their fool-proof plan, chill on Britain until America (WW1) or the USSR (WW2) arrives.
The German navy never possessed the capability to invade Britain, either in WWI or WWII.

In WWI Britain would have no way of defeating Germany either. Germany, victorious over France, would already have completely channged the so-called balance of power on the continent anyway. With a broken France forced to work with it, Germany would be able to get all the resources it needed, regardless of what Britain had to say about the matter. They would not be starved out as in OTL. Not that Britain would have any reason to continue combatting Germany anyway.
 
The Brits would just stick to their fool-proof plan, chill on Britain until America (WW1) or the USSR (WW2) arrives.
Continuous war brings economic and political strain, especially if they amass colonial troops in Britain and Germany continues to pray on North Atlantic shipping.

We also need to consider how Germany wins and any prospective peace. If it gains access to French ports, the British Fleet in Scapa Flow cannot as easily intercept any action into the North Atlantic, increasing the threat to shipping. As well as potential u-boat bases with easier access to shipping. If the Germans can claim reparations in the form of major warships it gives them more of an advantage.
With France knocked out in 1914, Italy will not be joining the Allies and potentially join the Central Powers for colonial gains (though I don't know how likely this would be) and Greece would try to stay out of it to.
The situation in the Mediterranean is much less secure for the British now, Malta and Egypt could be threatened, especially if Italy joins to give them bases in North Africa.

There is also the popular perception, if France (and presumably Belgium) agree to peace, why should Britain keep fighting?

Germany would never be able to invade Britain, but that doesn't mean they can't cause significant problems.
 
If 1871 repeated itself, the German army would have partially occupied the country, taken reparations, and then fought Russia. I wouldn't be surprised if Belgium et. al. remained in German hands. I don't know what Britain would have done, but I'm not sure they would have simply given up. Perhaps they might, but perhaps they would resist as best they could -- as they did with Napoleon. I can see Germany conquering more of Russia and forcing an earlier collapse of the tsarist government. That might lead to Bolshevist guerillas waging war against the German occupation, but it's all guesswork.

Whatever the consequences, "victory" for any side would result in another war. The strengthened German empire would certainly butt heads with some power at some point.
 
An Anglo-German alliance would have been sweet like Joseph Chamberlain proposed.
 
An Anglo-German alliance would have been sweet like Joseph Chamberlain proposed.

If they had also gotten a Hohenzollern on the throne of Spain, it would've been like the 16th century all over again.
 
Would US willingness to fight in Europe decline?
 
Top Bottom