Germany takes Paris 1914

WI Paris had indeed fallen to the Kaiser's armies.

Would France fight on?

What if any terms would Germany want?


I have to say that my impression is that the bunch round the Kaiser liked the idea of winning a war but had no real idea of what they wanted to do when they won.

Oh and would Belguim continue to exist in any meaningful form?

War objectives and goals for August or September 1914 are radically different than those of 1916 or 1917.

I assume this means a successful Schlieffen (sp) Plan, so.....

While it would be tempting to have OTL repeat itself, with Russia performing badly again, maybe ITTL they fight that much harder since their ally France is out, and only they are left against Germany (and the other CPs, for that matter)...

Unless the British forces are there, so the question becomes can Germany defeat Fr. and everything that comes with it, i.e. take Alsace-Lorraine and maybe some Fr. colonies, before the Brits send forces into continental Europe.

I don't think the Germans had any real territorial aims. They seemed mostly in countering Britain with an economic powerbase as well as acquiring more colonies. I think Belgium would still exist, but as a satellite of Germany. Their coastal ports would be completely under German control and Belgian Congo would be German Congo, thus Germany controlling the entire swath of central Africa. They would also take some land in France, not much at all, but some economically important areas in the NW, where there are coal and other natural recourses. In the east we'd see little border change as well. With Paris taken, which I believe would put France out of the war, the Russians would be still defeated at Tannenburg, and would more than likely sue for peace. They'd maybe lose some of Poland to Germany and forced to abandon support for Serbia, but little else would change. Even if economic and social situation got so bad in Russia that would allow for a socialist or communist revolution, the Kaiser I think would see the vested interests of keeping his cousin on the throne of Russia, possibly even offering military support. Britain, as a result of a quick end in the west, would simply shrug their shoulders, see to it that German colonial gains would be minimal, keep an eye on German ambitions, pack it up and go home. Austria subdues Serbia, probably w/o direct annexation, Italy, Bulgaria and Turkey never get into the war, so nothing changes with them. Japan is the only ally to gain some German colonies, which Germany feels they can lose, as they have gained Congo and economic control over continental Europe.


Of course, I could be wrong !!

The Germans lacked the logisitics to do a smooth march into Paris. I think they would have quite moderate claims in the west, perhaps a bit of Africa and some border straightening with France.

How is it taken?
Are we talking swiftly taken in a sweeping move right at the beginning of the war, taking everyone by suprise or eventually overran after a long hard fight with the French being steadily pushed back?

Belgium loses its eastern third from the Namur River and France loses Lorraine/Franche-Comte

Sorry to repeat my mantra, but World War I was the really unnecessary war. (Not WW2, as Churchill said.) It would have been in everyone's best interest if Paris fell and Germany won a quick victory.

Maybe some territorial adjustments in France. I think Germany might totally withdraw from Belgium to gain a quick peace with the UK. Germany would even make good on its offer to pay indemnities to Belgium. Then the UK could say they won and Germany could avoid a prolonged war.

The other problem would be internal German politics. A victory would probably delay further democratization.

New Yorker said:

The other problem would be internal German politics. A victory would probably delay further democratization.

Click to expand...

A quick victory would probably speed up democratization, not only in Germany but also in Austria-Hungary (where either Karl or Otto will have to do serious reforms).
For one, the social democrats have shown to support the country in times of war. That does count for much.

...its simple....if germany had taken paris 1914, then the second world war probably would not have happened... ...and germany would probably still be a huge country occupying central europe along with the huge Austrio-hungarian empire...

Paris fallen would not have necessarly meaned the capitualition of France. Maybe the governement, seeing the dangerously close germans,w ould have fled to the countryside south (Nantes? Marseille? Bourgogne?) and merely kept the fight, albeit shaken a bit?

The loss (or at least the cutting off) of Paris in 1870 did not end the Franco-Prussian War. After 40+ years of calling for revenge, I don't imagine the French would toss in the towel. With all the trained troops available to France, the war would continue. With problems of supply, the Germans might be in for 'the miracle of the Seine".

Riain said:

The Germans lacked the logistics to do a smooth march into Paris. I think they would have quite moderate claims in the west, perhaps a bit of Africa and some border straightening with France.

Click to expand...

In addition to that, I think the CPs would probably beat Russia enough in the east to cause the Tsar to sue for peace. Most likely, we would've seen the 1795 Partition borders applied to Poland.
But, earlier peace in the east would probably butterfly away the 1917 Russian Revolution, at least for a while.

Prinz Richard Eugen said:

The loss (or at least the cutting off) of Paris in 1870 did not end the Franco-Prussian War. After 40+ years of calling for revenge, I don't imagine the French would toss in the towel. With all the trained troops available to France, the war would continue. With problems of supply, the Germans might be in for 'the miracle of the Seine".

Click to expand...

This seems possible to me; France will be able to last into 1915. This means that the war likely continues, though Britain will have to use the BEF elsewhere after it's pulled out (successful Gallipoli?). Germany will be able to send some more troops to the east though, likely using them to strengthen Austria.

WW1 was the nessecary war, because the world had radically changed since the last major world political settlement of 1815. The IR had changed the nature of state power itself and there were several new players; USA and Germany notably, who were not properly taken into account in this new environment. WW2 was its unnessecary radicalised offshoot, as a result of the indecisive result of WW1 and its unnatural balance of power. The shorter the war the better, since as it dragged on people got more and more pissed off, leading to H&Ls dictatorship, Russian revolution and French mutiny. A short war would lead to easy peace terms. BUT in WW1 hope was as persistent as a friggin' weed, so I don't think France will capitulate when it has promises of assistance from Russia and Britain. Their attitude was to hang on until the actions of someone else improve the situation, unlike 1870-1 when they had no allies or hope. So the war will drag on and the Entente will need to be beaten, but with Paris in German hands this would be much more likely.

Paris falling would probably swing some of the neutrals into the Central Powers camp in addition to any effects it would have on the French war effort. Romania and Italy were both waiting see which side was more likely to win before joining in, and Paris falling might be enough to convince them that it would be in their best interests to join what looks to be the winning side.

Prinz Richard Eugen said:

The loss (or at least the cutting off) of Paris in 1870 did not end the Franco-Prussian War. After 40+ years of calling for revenge, I don't imagine the French would toss in the towel. With all the trained troops available to France, the war would continue. With problems of supply, the Germans might be in for 'the miracle of the Seine".

Click to expand...

I thought the actual fall of Paris in Jan 1871 led to the end of hostilities?

Either way, with Paris gone that should eliminate the rest of French industrial capacity and likely force the Allies to rethink their defensive lines, it might let the French retake Paris in a counterattack but I believe that the line would shift slightly beyond Paris towards Versailles, Bretagny, and Melon. I also think the shift in forces needed to prevent a German breakout from the city will cost the Allies the Channel coast to at least St Valerie if not Dieppe, perhaps even Le Havre will be shelled though I doubt it gets taken. French morale will be through the floor but I do not know if they will surrender, perhaps we see Vichy becoming a capital in 1914?

I could see the Western Front more mobile then it was OTL. I mean there could be regions with deep entrenchments, but if they have Paris, then the Germans have pretty open movement. They can use the cavalry as it was intended, and get quite a bit of movement.

Good point, it was the low density of troops which kept the eastern front mobile to 100 miles. However the French and BEF are not the Russians, and can also be expected to use this low density to keep up their own movement. Also WW1 movement was generally pushing rather than penetration and flanking moves, so what's the point?

Remember people that Paris was the rail hub of france with it taken and held the logistics of any forces opposing the CP would be in for some very hard times.

I can't really see GB committing the forces they did in OTL WWI if paris has fallen. Quite simply these forces couldn't be adequately supplied.

The Other interesting thing is the possession of the neutrals.
If Paris has fallen and is held by the Central Powers it is nearly certain that Italy would enter on their side as any offer the entente has made would be seen as a desperate ploy by Italy one which they would believe that the entente had no way of fulfilling.

If this happens the Italy will help the Gremans and AH control the med or at least make it too dangerous for the rest of the entete to use without say the British abandoning the blockade of Germany to reinforce the med.
This wouldn't happen.

If Paris falls I would see GB making terms with the CP on the condition of Belgiums return most likely with an indemity paid for war damages.

There's one other situation that needs to be taken into accout Japans Ships in the med would either be destroyed or forced to flee with much loss of face.
This could have bad effects for the INJ in years to come.