Plausibility Check: An Imperial German Maginot Line?

futurist
Banned

Banned

Posts: 837

Likes: 12

Plausibility Check: An Imperial German Maginot Line? Aug 27, 2018 4:47:54 GMT

Quote

Post by futurist on Aug 27, 2018 4:47:54 GMT

Had Franz Ferdinand survived the assassination attempt on his life on June 28, 1914 and World War I would have thus been prevented (at least in 1914), would it have been plausible for Imperial Germany to eventually construct something similar to the French Maginot Line on its border with France, Belgium, and perhaps the southern Netherlands as well?

Basically, the logic behind this would be to force France to attack Germany through both Belgium and the Netherlands in a future war. Such a move on France's part would severely hurt France's image and would probably make it likely that Britain would militarily intervene on Germany's side in a future World War I--especially if Russia's growing military power would have pushed Britain and Germany closer together.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? Is this scenario plausible?

Last Edit: Aug 27, 2018 4:48:07 GMT by futurist

stevep
Fleet admiral

Posts: 23,447

Likes: 12,053

Plausibility Check: An Imperial German Maginot Line? Aug 27, 2018 11:35:50 GMT

Quote

Post by stevep on Aug 27, 2018 11:35:50 GMT

Aug 27, 2018 4:47:54 GMT futurist said:

Had Franz Ferdinand survived the assassination attempt on his life on June 28, 1914 and World War I would have thus been prevented (at least in 1914), would it have been plausible for Imperial Germany to eventually construct something similar to the French Maginot Line on its border with France, Belgium, and perhaps the southern Netherlands as well?

Basically, the logic behind this would be to force France to attack Germany through both Belgium and the Netherlands in a future war. Such a move on France's part would severely hurt France's image and would probably make it likely that Britain would militarily intervene on Germany's side in a future World War I--especially if Russia's growing military power would have pushed Britain and Germany closer together.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? Is this scenario plausible?

Well the Germans have powerful fortifications on their border against France, which inflicted very heavy losses on French attacks in the early stages of the war. See Battle_of_the_Frontiers-Aftermath, for more details. This was helped by the belief of many in the French high command than elan would enable their forces to make successful attacks against fortified units without powerful artillery support, the notorious Plan XVII.

I don't see defences along the border with the Netherlands having much point as a French attack, unless it was amphibious would have to come through Belgium to reach the Dutch, ensuring both were hostile to France. If Germany had decided on a defensive position in the west rather than all-out-attack then there would be a point to at least some defences on the border with Belgium in case a French attack via the latter country got that far.

However a German defence in the west seems unlikely since the general view in most/all of the continental states was that a short war won by quick offensive success and also Germany had the view that they needed to avoid a prolonged two front war. Since they were unlikely to win quickly in the east this made almost certain that they would strike quickly and hard in the west. In hindsight of course we know they would probably have been a lot better off going for a defence on both fronts but few realised how the war was likely to develop at that point.

This might change from about 1916 onwards as Russia was appearing to be a markedly greater threat, making a powerful attack in the west impractical. Also FF's rise to power in Austria was likely to cause a constitutional crisis, possibly even a civil war in the empire, albeit one that loyalists are likely to win quickly. As such stronger defences on the French and Belgium border and attempts to patch up relations with Britain would have been a very practical approach, whether they took a static or mobile defensive approach in the east.

Last Edit: Aug 27, 2018 11:39:35 GMT by stevep

James G
Squadron vice admiral

Posts: 7,608

Likes: 8,817

Plausibility Check: An Imperial German Maginot Line? Aug 27, 2018 12:48:29 GMT

Quote

Post by James G on Aug 27, 2018 12:48:29 GMT

Aug 27, 2018 11:35:50 GMT stevep said:

Aug 27, 2018 4:47:54 GMT futurist said:

Had Franz Ferdinand survived the assassination attempt on his life on June 28, 1914 and World War I would have thus been prevented (at least in 1914), would it have been plausible for Imperial Germany to eventually construct something similar to the French Maginot Line on its border with France, Belgium, and perhaps the southern Netherlands as well?

Basically, the logic behind this would be to force France to attack Germany through both Belgium and the Netherlands in a future war. Such a move on France's part would severely hurt France's image and would probably make it likely that Britain would militarily intervene on Germany's side in a future World War I--especially if Russia's growing military power would have pushed Britain and Germany closer together.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? Is this scenario plausible?

Well the Germans have powerful fortifications on their border against France, which inflicted very heavy losses on French attacks in the early stages of the war. See Battle_of_the_Frontiers-Aftermath, for more details. This was helped by the belief of many in the French high command than elan would enable their forces to make successful attacks against fortified units without powerful artillery support, the notorious Plan XVII.

I don't see defences along the border with the Netherlands having much point as a French attack, unless it was amphibious would have to come through Belgium to reach the Dutch, ensuring both were hostile to France. If Germany had decided on a defensive position in the west rather than all-out-attack then there would be a point to at least some defences on the border with Belgium in case a French attack via the latter country got that far.

However a German defence in the west seems unlikely since the general view in most/all of the continental states was that a short war won by quick offensive success and also Germany had the view that they needed to avoid a prolonged two front war. Since they were unlikely to win quickly in the east this made almost certain that they would strike quickly and hard in the west. In hindsight of course we know they would probably have been a lot better off going for a defence on both fronts but few realised how the war was likely to develop at that point.

This might change from about 1916 onwards as Russia was appearing to be a markedly greater threat, making a powerful attack in the west impractical. Also FF's rise to power in Austria was likely to cause a constitutional crisis, possibly even a civil war in the empire, albeit one that loyalists are likely to win quickly. As such stronger defences on the French and Belgium border and attempts to patch up relations with Britain would have been a very practical approach, whether they took a static or mobile defensive approach in the east.

I agree with the bolded part.
It would take something quite dramatic for such a change in Imperial German thinking at the time to see a defensive rather than offensive posture taken.
Win quick, win with an attack was the dogma. Now there was the weakening of the actual attack west against France at the last minute in 1914 where some troops were put on a defensive mission yet even then, that retained the possibility of an offensive mission with a change of orders.
A large static line of defensive positions just doesn't seem to fit with the thinking at the time.

I am here in Redwallshire and I am being ware.

stevep
Fleet admiral

Posts: 23,447

Likes: 12,053

Plausibility Check: An Imperial German Maginot Line? Aug 27, 2018 21:29:40 GMT

Quote

Post by stevep on Aug 27, 2018 21:29:40 GMT

Aug 27, 2018 12:48:29 GMT James G said:

Aug 27, 2018 11:35:50 GMT stevep said:

Well the Germans have powerful fortifications on their border against France, which inflicted very heavy losses on French attacks in the early stages of the war. See Battle_of_the_Frontiers-Aftermath, for more details. This was helped by the belief of many in the French high command than elan would enable their forces to make successful attacks against fortified units without powerful artillery support, the notorious Plan XVII.

I don't see defences along the border with the Netherlands having much point as a French attack, unless it was amphibious would have to come through Belgium to reach the Dutch, ensuring both were hostile to France. If Germany had decided on a defensive position in the west rather than all-out-attack then there would be a point to at least some defences on the border with Belgium in case a French attack via the latter country got that far.

However a German defence in the west seems unlikely since the general view in most/all of the continental states was that a short war won by quick offensive success and also Germany had the view that they needed to avoid a prolonged two front war. Since they were unlikely to win quickly in the east this made almost certain that they would strike quickly and hard in the west. In hindsight of course we know they would probably have been a lot better off going for a defence on both fronts but few realised how the war was likely to develop at that point.

This might change from about 1916 onwards as Russia was appearing to be a markedly greater threat, making a powerful attack in the west impractical. Also FF's rise to power in Austria was likely to cause a constitutional crisis, possibly even a civil war in the empire, albeit one that loyalists are likely to win quickly. As such stronger defences on the French and Belgium border and attempts to patch up relations with Britain would have been a very practical approach, whether they took a static or mobile defensive approach in the east.

I agree with the bolded part.
It would take something quite dramatic for such a change in Imperial German thinking at the time to see a defensive rather than offensive posture taken.
Win quick, win with an attack was the dogma. Now there was the weakening of the actual attack west against France at the last minute in 1914 where some troops were put on a defensive mission yet even then, that retained the possibility of an offensive mission with a change of orders.
A large static line of defensive positions just doesn't seem to fit with the thinking at the time.

The reason I considered the possibility was that I have read that the Germans were seriously concerned that once the Russians had completed railway developments, which I think was by 1916, then their mobilisations would be too quick for the attack on France to succeed. Since a decisive offensive in the east seems unlikely that would probably force the Germans into a defensive stance but how long it would take for the Higher Command and political leadership to accept that an offensive option and a quick war is no longer practical could be an interesting question, as it could be several years before strategic reality overcomes institutional inertia. By which time other factors could well change as well.

steffen
Ensign

Posts: 300
Likes: 18

Plausibility Check: An Imperial German Maginot Line? Aug 31, 2018 14:08:33 GMT

Quote

Post by steffen on Aug 31, 2018 14:08:33 GMT

No chance for a maginot line...

you miss the war that caused him to think that france NEEDED that kind of defence.
There existed fortresses... they were good enough.
OTL - if the germans had stood on the defence , they would have slaughtered the french easily with 1, maybe 2 armies... another one cover the belgian frontline... and you have an easy Win-scenario for the germans in ww1.

But as was mentioned, the idea was to strike and win a quick war.

if you change this mindset, the germans would do this:
a.) build up strategic reserves, so they could stay in a war for longer
b.) look for allies outside the german bight...
c.) look for methods to supply your home front with strategic materials (either by neutrals or by trading subs)
d.) make sure that at last some neutrals will not get violated (as the dutch... if the USA keep them supplied, germany is untouchable - that was the idea of OTL, but if you face a long war, you prepare much better for that)
e.) have a plan

OTL was "quick invasion of france, then fight to break the will of russia"...
f.) use your navy usefully...

OTL the germans expected from 1911 that UK was an enemy. in a short war this is no problem, because beating france mean it is over before the british could do some bad things to your economy.
If you expect a long war, you need better preparation (infact you need that too in a short war.. but we do not want to wank them).

Russia - was seen as the true deadly enemy... in a long war you coordinate better with your only allied partner - AH. So you propably avoid the mess of Conrads mobilisation plans... that alone could win you the war, but again, that is basically a wank in itself.

So, you have a plan, a strategy.
You get modern stuff (the Haber-Bosch-facilities that are needed to produce nitrates - if you do not struggle in a war in 1914, but say in 1916 germany could FULLY supply its harvest AND produce much more ammunition... bad news for its enemies).

If your strategy mean you stay on defence in the west, you want to strike in the east. Right?
So dig in, slaughter the "frogs" and "ketchups" if they attack, have some eyes on the dutch (british invasion) and belgium (british invasion, french invasion),... otherwise march east...

you have no other chance in that scenario.

So - the fleet will support your big invasion stuff on the moon island - in 1914, press the russian fleet in a corner quickly... , then try to support your advancing armies by some invasions at the coast. German imperial fleet of 1916 (the year we start this conflict?) is able to do that.

the armies: you have enlarged your armies by 1 or 2, after all you calculate with a long bloody war (or you would not build your defence system in the west)... so you could defend in the west with 4 armies and still send 5 to the east, maybe 6.
We know that this mean the russians are doomed... they get slaughtered from day 1 of this war, that will never change.

If that happens, and in the same time the french (and maybe - no invasion in belgium, so unclear if uk enters early in that war) die in huge numbers achiving nothing at the border, italy will not enter this war. Not at all... so austria is in better shape, serbia dies in 1915, bulgaria enters the conflict earlier (possible)
The osmans got their 2 battleships, have recovered from the balkan-wars... so russia need more forces against them.
If UK is neutral till that point they have to think about the consequences of that war. Better to negotiate a peace (and hope to get influence)...
if they are dump they are in the war. So expect also the british dying useless in the trenches.
If UK and France attack belgium -> no rape of belgium but belgium a german ally... USA will not tolerate violating of their neutral rights... expect large US convoys moving through the war zone to the dutch... and they will sell to germany because the evil british and french threatens them.

Russia in the meantime get slaughtered...

Game over in 1918 latest.

So, sometimes in 1918 the germans will turn to the west and now expect some huge defeats for the thinned french and british forces, against the might of germany, belgium, austria-Hungaria... with no pro-british leaning neutrals...

perkeo
Petty Officer 2nd Class

Posts: 25
Likes: 6

Plausibility Check: An Imperial German Maginot Line? Sept 2, 2018 14:50:04 GMT via mobile

Quote

Post by perkeo on Sept 2, 2018 14:50:04 GMT

I think that such a line of fortresses has diplomatic advantages that might turn out to be even more important than the military ones:
If the Germans literally set in stone that their western borders shall stay as they are, literally cement the status quo, most of the reasons why Britain went to war - both the official and the unofficial - are gone. France will want Alsace-Lorraine back, but If this means that Germany is the better warrant for the status quo in Western Europe, they are definitely struggling to keep Britain in the boat.

stevep
Fleet admiral

Posts: 23,447

Likes: 12,053

Plausibility Check: An Imperial German Maginot Line? Sept 2, 2018 19:40:43 GMT

Quote

Post by stevep on Sept 2, 2018 19:40:43 GMT

Sept 2, 2018 14:50:04 GMT perkeo said:

I think that such a line of fortresses has diplomatic advantages that might turn out to be even more important than the military ones:
If the Germans literally set in stone that their western borders shall stay as they are, literally cement the status quo, most of the reasons why Britain went to war - both the official and the unofficial - are gone. France will want Alsace-Lorraine back, but If this means that Germany is the better warrant for the status quo in Western Europe, they are definitely struggling to keep Britain in the boat.

That would definitely be a big factor. The behaviour of elements of the German leadership in the decade prior to 1914, especially the naval threat caused concern but if the Germans were on the defensive in the west Britain is markedly less likely to be pulled into the war, and if it is its likely to be a markedly divided country and effort as a result. [Belgium was a bit like Pearl Harbour for the US, between the strategic threat to Britain and the attack on a neutral and even then IIRC 3 ministers resigned over the decision to go to war.]