Also recall the disastrous French offensive (Plan 19) against the German frontier in 1914. Massive casualties for the French army with almost no gain in territory. Not only could the Germans hold the French off in the West but in the actual event they did.
Agreed! I would add that not drawing Britain into the war by invading Belgium would have meant no devastating blockade by the Royal Navy. The import dependent German Empire suffered mightily, as well as losing all its overseas colonies. But then the Germans have always discounted sea power.
Hi Rob, Britain's potential response is an interesting point to consider isn't it. And even if Britain did intervene its aid would have been different. Britain was unique amongst the Great Powers because it had a very small but completely professional army, its colonies could provide forces but that took time. The British Expeditionary Force was sent to Europe because of Germany's direct threat to the Low Countries, Britain's historic trade hub for Europe. If Germany had gone East, Britain would probably have responded but I think it would have been mostly naval and it is unlikely the Empire's land power would have been mobilised. But who knows? And its interesting to speculate.
Speaking of naval solutions, what do you think of the Fisher Plan?
Invading Denmark or southern Sweden to cut off Germany from its iron ore imports, and possibly juke the Germans into 'striking first' is a bold strategy for sure. I wonder how well it would work out if Fisher had been more talkative and not gotten sidelined by Churchill.
Awesome question, I think the chances of success depended on whether it is 'full' Baltic plan including an invasion of Pomerania. Or just blockades based around lodgments in Denmark and Heligoland. In my opinion the key issue in either possible iteration of the plan is the small size of Britain's land forces. I recollect seeing historian, Chris Pugsley argue that WW1's great strategic gamble at Gallipoli failed because a large amphibious operation requires highly professional infantry. And by 1915 the BEF (Britain's very capable professional army) had been destroyed. So historically, Britain lacked the capability for a complex amphibious operation. However, if the BEF was not destroyed, would it have been big enough to achieve the required lodgment? I don't know but it is certainly an interesting question. Then there is the naval question, could the Royal Navy force passage into the Baltic? Another interesting question for people interested in alternate histories.
Also recall the disastrous French offensive (Plan 19) against the German frontier in 1914. Massive casualties for the French army with almost no gain in territory. Not only could the Germans hold the French off in the West but in the actual event they did.
A fantastic article, very interesting, thanks.
Agreed! I would add that not drawing Britain into the war by invading Belgium would have meant no devastating blockade by the Royal Navy. The import dependent German Empire suffered mightily, as well as losing all its overseas colonies. But then the Germans have always discounted sea power.
Hi Rob, Britain's potential response is an interesting point to consider isn't it. And even if Britain did intervene its aid would have been different. Britain was unique amongst the Great Powers because it had a very small but completely professional army, its colonies could provide forces but that took time. The British Expeditionary Force was sent to Europe because of Germany's direct threat to the Low Countries, Britain's historic trade hub for Europe. If Germany had gone East, Britain would probably have responded but I think it would have been mostly naval and it is unlikely the Empire's land power would have been mobilised. But who knows? And its interesting to speculate.
Speaking of naval solutions, what do you think of the Fisher Plan?
Invading Denmark or southern Sweden to cut off Germany from its iron ore imports, and possibly juke the Germans into 'striking first' is a bold strategy for sure. I wonder how well it would work out if Fisher had been more talkative and not gotten sidelined by Churchill.
Awesome question, I think the chances of success depended on whether it is 'full' Baltic plan including an invasion of Pomerania. Or just blockades based around lodgments in Denmark and Heligoland. In my opinion the key issue in either possible iteration of the plan is the small size of Britain's land forces. I recollect seeing historian, Chris Pugsley argue that WW1's great strategic gamble at Gallipoli failed because a large amphibious operation requires highly professional infantry. And by 1915 the BEF (Britain's very capable professional army) had been destroyed. So historically, Britain lacked the capability for a complex amphibious operation. However, if the BEF was not destroyed, would it have been big enough to achieve the required lodgment? I don't know but it is certainly an interesting question. Then there is the naval question, could the Royal Navy force passage into the Baltic? Another interesting question for people interested in alternate histories.