What would've happened if the miracle at the Marne never happened?

[HeinrechvonBaronich]

Im new here so I dont wanna do some stuff in this description

Anyways, the topic here is..

What would've happened if the mircacle at the marne never happened

thats it

 

[ArtosStark]

Welcome to AH.com!
Just to let you know you generally want to expand a little more in the Original post.

For starters, what was the “Miracle of the Marne”? This allows those who are not familiar to catch up and contribute without having to do their own research. It also defines the boundaries of the discussion so we are a little less likely to be talking past each other.

Then, you want to be sure to start a discussion rather than just be asking a question. Threads that don’t do this are actually closed by the Mods. So, in this case you might want to do something like:

The First Battle of the Marne, also referred to as “The Miracle on the Marne” in France during WW1 was a pivotal moment when the advancing German forces were stopped not far from Paris. But what if the Germans were not stopped? Would the Germans have been able to take Paris? And if so, would that end the War in their favour? What would the Entente do in response? What effects would there be on later history of an early German victory in WW1.”

The above would still get a lot of questions trying to clarify why the First Battle of the Marne didn’t happen, but would be a better start.

In answer to your question though, the Marne was always going to be the next battlefield. It is an obvious defensive line even if it had not been fortified pre-war. And it was. By the time the Germans reached the Marne they were massively overextended. They had marched a very long way, and their supply lines were not keeping up. The Schlieffen plan was always operationally flawed and it would take a considerable amount of bad luck or incompetence on the Ententes part to have them win at the Marne. And even if they do, the problem will only get worse the further they go.

 

[Mikestone8]

Your best PoD is probably the Battle of Mons.

Had Kluck continued on his original path (rather than moving closer to Bulow as Moltke ordered him to) he would have crossed the Franco-Belgian border(and the Mons-Conde Canal) further west than OTL, opposed by only a few French Territorials. He would thus have taken the BEF in flank rather than head-on, and it would not have had the canal as a defensive position. After that things get much more iffy, but had the BBEF been pushed back eastward rather than south, it would have been clogging the roads directly behind the French V Army, and right across Lanrezac's line of retreat. So the Germans have at least the chance of a "Tannenberg West" with both BEF and V Army destroyed.

This is very bad news for France, but not *necessarily* fatal . By Sep 5 there was a big bulge in the front line, so if the French straighten it by pulling back from Verdun to a more or less straight line from Toul -Nancy to just north of Paris, this may enable them to release enough troops to cover the remaining gap between Paris and the Channel, which the front may hit somewhere near the mouth of the Somme. So you still get trench warfare, but along a line quite a bit further west, so France loses more of its industry, and Paris is going to have an awful time, perhaps ending up a bit like Ypres did OTL. But in this situation France still hasn't collapsed, at least not right away.

Possible butterfly. This western "Tannenberg" would go some way to overshadow the actual one, so maybe Hindenburg (and so Ludendorff) doesn't achieve the same prominence as OTL.

 

[Catspoke]

Your best PoD is probably the Battle of Mons.

Had Kluck continued on his original path (rather than moving closer to Bulow as Moltke ordered him to) he would have crossed the Franco-Belgian border(and the Mons-Conde Canal) further west than OTL, opposed by only a few French Territorials. He would thus have taken the BEF in flank rather than head-on, and it would not have had the canal as a defensive position. After that things get much more iffy, but had the BBEF been pushed back eastward rather than south, it would have been clogging the roads directly behind the French V Army, and right across Lanrezac's line of retreat. So the Germans have at least the chance of a "Tannenberg West" with both BEF and V Army destroyed.

This is very bad news for France, but not *necessarily* fatal . By Sep 5 there was a big bulge in the front line, so if the French straighten it by pulling back from Verdun to a more or less straight line from Toul -Nancy to just north of Paris, this may enable them to release enough troops to cover the remaining gap between Paris and the Channel, which the front may hit somewhere near the mouth of the Somme. So you still get trench warfare, but along a line quite a bit further west, so France loses more of its industry, and Paris is going to have an awful time, perhaps ending up a bit like Ypres did OTL. But in this situation France still hasn't collapsed, at least not right away.

Possible butterfly. This western "Tannenberg" would go some way to overshadow the actual one, so maybe Hindenburg (and so Ludendorff) doesn't achieve the same prominence as OTL.

Offsetting the loss of industry, partially, I imagine Beitain and France may be content to sit on the defensive for years and there may not be an obvious salient for the Germans to attack like "Verdun".

The big questions are does Italy still come in on the Allied side?, Do the Germans commit to a conventional channel naval campaign with more basing available in this TL?

The trend is favorable to Germany vs OTL here as long as some butterfly does not bite them. If Germany can set some reasonable peace demands an American negotiated peace could be a possibility. These we be mostly gains in the colonial area.

Trickiest peace issue is settling up with Japan who is sitting on ex German colonies and won't want to give them back.

 

[Mikestone8]

Offsetting the loss of industry, partially, I imagine Beitain and France may be content to sit on the defensive for years and there may not be an obvious salient for the Germans to attack like "Verdun".

I doubt if a purely defensive strategy is politically possible. Men will still get killed in sizeable numbers, and if there's no sign that anybody is doing anything to *defeat* Germany, the governments will almost certainly fall. Wiith such huge chunks of Allied territory in Germna hands, the pressure to do something about exxpelling them will be irresistable.

The big questions are does Italy still come in on the Allied side?, Do the Germans commit to a conventional channel naval campaign with more basing available in this TL?

Or they may use u-boats primarily as minelayers rather than torpedo boats. Possibly the sinking of the Lusitania is butterflied away, or she is sunk by a mine rather than a torpedo, which probably won't arouse the same outrage in the US.