Germany had a really, really good shot at making exactly that happen, actually. If a few things had tipped the other way - and if Moltke hadn't been so paranoid about Russia - they might well have been able to force the surrender of France within a few months.
I disagree, the Schlieffen Plan went extraordinary well, and by the time of the Marne battle at the very end of their logistic tether, and would have had to pause along approximately those lines regardless of French resistance.
The battle of the Marne stopped them as soon as they came out of step ever so slightly; if they had done everything absolutely perfectly, they could have reached Paris, but it was a heavily fortified city at the time. It could not have been besieged or stormed before the autumn rains make the front coagulate along the Seine.
I think France can be beaten by early 1915, but not before unless you make interventions like making morale collapse, fucked-up mobilization, German supernatural strategy, or such things. The historical constraints of WW1 are such.
the Russian Empire would most certainly have crumpled like paper under the weight of the entire German army.
I agree that Russia would most probably be defeated, but it would not surrender so soon.
The German Landser would still have to march to Moscow and probably a bit beyond. That takes a little while and will not happen at the earliest in late 1915 under any circumstances.
Russia was effectively beaten inside of two months -
(while Tannenberg was an outstanding victory, Russia was not beaten there and then.)
From then on Russia literally never succeeded in any campaign against Germany
The Brussilov Offensive.
Brussilov was one of the better commanders of WW1, and it shows what the Russian army could accomplish when not saddled with absolutely dismal leadership.
BEF might never even have been sent (it was almost not sent anyway)
Just an observation: if Britain is not in the war, then the channel ports are not important to defend, and the shorter defence line compensates for the lesser number of troops, and a German right outflank harder to do. (Of course, if later Britain does not join, or does but have to send troops via Bretagne and the Atlantic ports, that's so much the better for the Germans.)
The German advance was so rapid in OTL that much of the French high command and civilian leadership was still in Paris at the time of the Battle of the Marne;
As I said Paris is fortified and the Germans being in the neighbourhood is not the same as it falling. Even if we accept the OP premise of preternatural German and impossibly fast success and they manage encircling it with the French leadership still in it, then a provisional government and army HQ will be designated somewhere south of the Loire, exactly like in 1871.
The US would, if anything, simply start doing more business with Germany - most Americans really didn't give much of a shit about WWI until a couple of years in, and in this scenario the whole thing is basically over by that time.
No they won't, because Royal Navy.
The Central powers would be blockaded, so the US can only trade with the Allies. As trade has to be financially supported, as the war goes on the US has more and more of a staked investment in a British victory.
Though it could take quite a while before a war is declared, or stay just short of it and maintain a pro-British neutrality.
So what do you think Europe would look like in the wake of such a one sided beat-down. I doubt that Germany would try to conquer France at this point unless the Kaiser is crazier than I thought. But France IS going to suffer somehow as is Russia. You think Germany would take the Rest of Poland?
How about the Austro-Hungarian Empire, with Germany saving their ass what would they do to the Balkans?
Then there's Italy, the third member of this little group who declared that since this is an aggressive war by their allies they have no duty to fight....boy are they going to look bad to their Northern Neighbors.
Germany would not take that much territory from France, only the iron mines close to the border. Peace terms at least as harsh as Versailles/1940.
It would remain occupied until Britain came to terms, which could happen after a couple of decades, or never.
Belgium would be set as puppet state, Luxemburg annexesd. In the east, look what happened historically (Brest-Litovsk) a vassal kingdom of Poland with a Habsburg on the throne. Ukraine also. The Baltics annexed to Germany, not immediately but after a few years. Finland independent but a Central ally. Eventually, Germany, Autria-Hungary, and all their vassals/allies will move towards a merger of "Greater Mitteleuropa."
Then there's Italy, the third member of this little group who declared that since this is an aggressive war by their allies they have no duty to fight....boy are they going to look bad to their Northern Neighbors.
Italy stays neutral. One thing that made it very hard to be at war against Britain: Italy was very dependent on coastal freight with steam trampers, especially coal, extremely vulnerable to disruption. By WW2, much of it had gone over to railroad.
In which case probably we would have seen a cold-war-esque period of tension between Britain and Germany that would have led at some unpredictable time into a very, very different World War II.
Britain would not come to terms with what Germany would consider "just" from its perspective. It can go whole-hog on naval build-up, while Germany has to defend/occupy/keep France and Russia.
Perhaps feeling secure on land, Germany goes much more enthusiastically in for unrestricted submarine warfare, with predictable consequences.
If not, here what I think would the war goals:
Germany: unchallengeable military superiority on the continent. Naval parity with Britain. Substantial colonies from Belgium and France.
Britain: balance of power on the continent. RN naval superiority. No large rival colonial empire.
Both were quite set on these conditions.
I can see permanent naval warfare going on for years/decades, and this war called "The Second Great War", the First Great War being the Revolutionary/Napoleonic War ("Great War" being what they were historically called before WW1 took over that name)
Given the amount of Revanchism such a loss would fuel in the collective consciousness and the sheer intensity of the subsequent Nationalism it would fuel,
I can actually picture this AU's equivalent to National Socialism and following rise to power being born and taking place in France. Probably with a very strong "backstabbing" rhetoric. After all, how else would you explain that the most powerful Army in the world would lose so decisively and so quickly? Surely it would be the product of some sinister conspiracy.
Yes, France being the fascist Ur-Land in this timeline is very probable (also Russia, turning inwards with orthodox extremism). There always was a right-wing (conservative/catholic) that despised the 3rd Republic. If it fails, especially as spectacularly as in the OP, they will probably take over. The question is more how fast/gradually, like is it a coup, or they're in power and discard republicanism bit by bit.
Some kind of typical fascist strongman. It is not entirely impossible that the Monarchy is restored, or at least that it is a serious political objectives.
Very possible like Hungary in the interwar, "a kingdom without a king", where Admiral Horty was the dictator and official Regent.
