Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

You have to figure the Huns roll to an easy victory without Britain in the picture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

"A couple of British Divisions" = 6....small, but not insignificant - they held an important part of the line, and in GoA the 2 British Corps will do teh same if the Belgians are invaded - you'll be damned glad they're there!

Take the BEF out of this map - http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView/worldwari_maps_map08_largerview.htm and there's an awfully large hole between the French 5th and 6th armies into which Kluck's 1st army is heading - the Germans would have been in a great position to roll up the French line.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: marklv
Although the British forces would grow to a very substantial size over the course of the war, the British presence in 1914 was strategically insignificant.  The Germans are stopped by their own indecision on the Marne when up against stiff resistance. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Indeed, the German policy/strategy, was fatally flawed in that it created to many enemies. With a more deft hand, Germany probably could have avoided war with Britain and America and certainly have won the war. I think Britain would have faced a stark choice though, once Russia had been defeated and the full fury of Germany was directed at France. Of course, France may have accepted or offered peace terms after Russia's defeat, if Britain remained neutral. If France had continued the war, it would have been very difficult for Britain to stand by and watch France also beaten down. Of course, it would have almost certainly been to late, at that point, for Britain to save the situation. Regardless, I find the speculation interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

The British don't have much commitment anyway until mid 1915.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beyer160

quote:

ORIGINAL: marklv
Although the British forces would grow to a very substantial size over the course of the war, the British presence in 1914 was strategically insignificant.  The Germans are stopped by their own indecision on the Marne when up against stiff resistance. 

In a strategic sense, you're right- in the grand scheme the BEF was tiny, but the indecision at the Marne you refer to was the result of Von Kluck's loosing his cavalry screen in a meeting engagement with the British at Nery. Without cavalry, Von Kluck had no idea what kind of oposition he was facing at the Marne- First Army was essentially blind as they closed in on Paris.

It was eye-opening the first time I saw a map of the Western Front and compared the length of frontage held by the French against that held by the British.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut
I don't think Britain would have sat on the sidelines for too long absent the invasion of Belgium, they would have still entered the war, and probably sooner rather than later - they had made some promises to France after all. But I think that participation would have been considerably less enthisiastic, and with a longer ramp up time to full commitment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

The Germans had a hard enough time supplying Kluck and von Bulow as is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

You have to figure the Huns roll to an easy victory without Britain in the picture.

A couple of British divisions were not the reason for Germany being unable to gain victory in 1914. The next year was one of staggering unpreparedness, so until 1916, France was not in a dramatically different position to having no help on the west. Perhaps there would have been less impetus to attack, and the reverse for Germany, leading to a different pattern of casualties.

Whether France and Russia could hold on and force peace is another matter, but assuming an easy German victory ignores there complete lack of success on the offensive in the west, outside a few short months in 1914.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Yes but if the British had not ben there he would not have had to panic - the German line would have outflanked the French and rolled them up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
It might not be 1940, but IIRC the rate of advance from the Belgian border to the Marne was actually faster in 1914 than in 1940 by a fraction of a kilometer per day (I read it many years ago - no doubt someone can do the math?)

quote:

Maybe, maybe not- the French would have presumably deployed differently to make up for the "missing" BEF in the north- I can't believe Joffre would have left his flank open after he knew the Germans were coming through Belgium.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
You can't deploy troops you don't have!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

"A couple of British Divisions" = 6....small, but not insignificant - they held an important part of the line, and in GoA the 2 British Corps will do teh same if the Belgians are invaded - you'll be damned glad they're there!

quote:


Take the BEF out of this map - http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView/worldwari_maps_map08_largerview.htm and there's an awfully large hole between the French 5th and 6th armies into which Kluck's 1st army is heading - the Germans would have been in a great position to roll up the French line.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

"A couple of British Divisions" = 6....small, but not insignificant - they held an important part of the line, and in GoA the 2 British Corps will do teh same if the Belgians are invaded - you'll be damned glad they're there!

4 divisions plus cavalry, led by a vain incompetent who, had he commanded lesser men, would have lost the lot. The French put 5 armies into the field ~65 divisions plus cavalry and reserve. Puts the BEF into perspective.

I'm sure the French were glad they were there, and the BEF punched above their weight, but assuming that France would have been incapable of defending itself (as the poster I responded to assumed) is a product of either a bizarre inflation of what the BEF meant, or the tired old inaccurate and unfunny slurs against French backbone.

quote:


Take the BEF out of this map - http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView/worldwari_maps_map08_largerview.htm and there's an awfully large hole between the French 5th and 6th armies into which Kluck's 1st army is heading - the Germans would have been in a great position to roll up the French line.....

True, though I assume the French would have thinned the line, abandoned their opening offensive in Alsace, been able to hold on and still counter attack on the Marne (BEF contributed 5 divisions, several seriously understrength after Mons, plus cavalry, out of a total of 49 allied divisions.)

Being outnumbered by Germany might have pervesely worked out better for France in the short term: they may have avoided costly and embarassing failures caused by the political demand to be on the offensive during 1915. Long term is probably a German victory, but by no means as assured or inevitable as was claimed.

quote:

I'm sure the French were glad they were there, and the BEF punched above their weight, but assuming that France would have been incapable of defending itself (as the poster I responded to assumed) is a product of either a bizarre inflation of what the BEF meant, or the tired old inaccurate and unfunny slurs against French backbone

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Bollocks - I did not say they were incapable of defending themselves!! they would have been defeated, but that's another thing entirely - your paraphrasing sucks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

You have to figure the Huns roll to an easy victory without Britain in the picture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

Pointlessly withdrawn???

Uhhh, no.