Would a victory for the Germans in the first battle of the Marne

>>1620656
No. The Schlieffen plan required for an extra division to be placed to an already overstuffed road making it logistically impossible.

>>1620661
Yeah that unused extra division was to take the longest path all the way around from the very North - It only really prevented them from taking Paris requiring them to move south and try to crush the Entente's army. Although a victory at the Marne I don't think would've demolished the army, it would have 1. prevented/stalled the emergence of trench warfare (something in which the German's were doomed too lose over a long period of time) 2. Destabilized and Demoralized the Entente's coalition continuing their 40 day retreat while leaving Paris virtually undefended. So... yeah by then either Moltke goes crazy again or they win the war.

>>1620656

Well, considering that the Marne's approach was already deviating from the Schlieffen plan considerably, no, it would not mean a successful implementation of the Schlieffen plan.

That being said, a major German victory (although I have no idea how you'd pull one off) would really mangle France and might lead to the fall of Paris, which would probably be the deathblow, and thus a quick win for Germany in WW1.

>>1620717
>thus a quick win for Germany in WW1.
Britian and Russia would still be fighting, and US could supply food and armaments via trans-siberian railroad

>>1620786

Britain would still be fighting, but wouldn't have an easy way onto the European continent with land forces unless they want to try to fight their way up Italy (good luck)

Russia would still be colossally badly governed, and the U.S. would be mostly unitnerested in helping the Czar. (Britain's another matter) Not to mention that the Russians did historically crumple with considerably less force than the Germans would have to throw at them should France crumple.

>>1620786
If France surrenders the western front collapses. Britain would almost certainly have to withdraw from the mainland (like they did in WW2) and it's hard to imagine a scenario where they ship their men to Russia to fight on the Eastern Front.

>>1620717
I mean Kluck's and Bulow's armies separated leaving a gap between the two armies that was exploited therefore causing the Germans to retreat and for them to lose the battle. If that wouldn't have happened than couldn't they have won, especially judging by the fact that the Germans had a winning momentum + 400,000 more troops + a unified army?

>>1620807

More like at the end of their logistical tether, and run so ragged that there are anecdotes of German soldiers falling asleep at the battle.

> mean Kluck's and Bulow's armies separated leaving a gap between the two armies that was exploited

And if the First army shuffles over, now you've got a hanging right flank, which doesn't improve your position much.

>>1620800
Part of the reasons for Russian crumples were its armies were regularly sent on offensives to help prop up the western front.

Fighting a purely defensive manner probably would have led to a stalemate in Ukraine and A-H surviving the war.

>>1620825

I can't see the Russians lasting long with the momentum turned against them, the need to keep millions of people mobilized to keep the Germans and even the Austro-Hungarians advancing further, and all the instability within the Russian government that pre-dated the war.

This wasn't like either Napoleon or WW2, where they could politically afford to keep retreating and keep on the war footing forever.

>>1620825
Yeah I mean they were encouraged to go on the offensive a bit more but Russians still would've gotten colossally rekt i.e.: shit tier government, like 1 in every 3 soldiers had an operating weapon, brewing civil war, + German army could've put almost ALL of its resources on them not having to worry about the western front. I mean heck with Germany's resources after wiping the West clean they even could've whipped Austria-Hungary's incompetent ass soner and even saved pzemysl
--I'd say Russian surrender within a matter of months

>>1620868

I'm the other anon who replied to him, I wouldn't say a couple of months. I would think it's more or less on the historical record. Again, it's not so much the battlefield defeats that are going to bring down Russia, but rather the pressures and privations of the war on the home front beyond the Volga (where the Germans aren't getting near in that kind of timeframe, no matter how successful they are) bringing down the Czar's government. It takes time for war weariness to build, and more time before you actually have calls for revolution. There's only so much the process can accelerate.

If Russia's bowing out in a few months, it's likely because they'd sign some sort of seperate peace deal now thinking that the war is unwinnable at this juncture, give up some of their territories (Probably most or all of Poland) to get out of a bad deal.

>Germans force a French surrender
>Able to turn massive numbers of soldier eastward
>don't have to send in Lenin
>demolish Russia, establishing Mitteleuropa
>Cold War with Britain until the death of Willy 2
>Liberalization of Germany begins
>Europe federalizes with Willhelm III at the head
>Britain is left out and becomes a colony of India

>>1620889

Yeah I'd say you're right- especially with their seemingly endless supply of troops for the time it was more so how the general populace gradually became sick of shit like being starving and relocated. I mean that's not to say that huge losses on the field won't have an effect either just look at how Tannenburg put the Russians on the run leading to swaths of territory being taken.

By a surrender I less meant a full on occupation of Moscow (proven to be pretty much impossible unless you had around a decade) - I more had in mind a brest-litovsk treaty but for slightly different reasons like the psychological factor having no more allies on the mainland as well as knowing that millions of your own men would be slaughtered if the almost useless fighting continued.