What if instead attacking France in 1914, Germans instead attack Russians in the East and hold a defensive line against the frogs?
>>1237537
If Russia would have collapsed considerably sooner say late 1915 or early 1916 the war in the west would have had a different outcome. Personally i think France would have collapsed somwhere around late 1917/early 1918. Germany wouldn't have starved as bad (ukrainian agriculture) and maybe would have gotten some valuable ressources out of the empires rotten corpse.
I think GB and the Reich would have made a peace Deal at some point. France would have had an even worse face than Weimar, plagued by revanchists and left wing extremism.
>>1237915
france wouldnt, but italy practicaly did
>>1237925
France would have collapsed at some point against loads of german troops from the east and whatever A-U could spare.
>>1237933
Given that Germany overwhelms them before the US gets involved/ avoid US involvment completly.
>>1237537
prussiaboos need to die.
>>1237537
It's more-or-less what they actually did.
Yes of course, in 1914 Germany attacked throught Belgium and tried to take Paris. But after the defeat of the Marne, the germans held their forces in defense, only trying to offense to bleed out the frogs while crushing the east.
They still had to suffer because of the Royal Navy blockade and because the french army managed to modernize itself. Plus the american reinforcements afterwards.
So I don't think much would have changed.
>>1237978
>Only trying offenses to bleed out the frogs.
>Initially attacked belgium.
They actually focused most of their forces and material in the west. OPs assumption was that the things you casually dismiss here are happening on the eastern front. Le ebin frogmen had trouble stopping the initial german offense. The russians would have folded and wouldn't have been able to hold the german offensives following a initial attack in the east with full force.
