The best book on the subject is there:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/185375479X/qid=1094506252/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6039019-9029615?v=glance&s=books

Here what happenned:

from http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/marne1.htm

Battles: The First Battle of the Marne, 1914
Updated - Saturday, 11 August, 2001

The First Battle of the Marne was conducted between 6-12 September 1914, with the outcome bringing to an end the war of movement that had dominated the First World War since the beginning of August. Instead, with the German advance brought to a halt, stalemate and trench warfare ensued.

Having invaded Belgium and north-eastern France, the German army had reached within 30 miles of Paris. Their progress had been rapid, having successfully beaten back Belgian, French and British forces in advancing deep into north-eastern France. Their advance was in pursuance of the aims of the Schlieffen Plan, whose primary focus was the swift defeat of France in the west before turning attention the Russian forces in the east.

As the German armies neared Paris, the French capital prepared itself for a siege. The defending French forces (Fifth and Sixth Armies) - and the British - were at the point of exhaustion, having retreated continuously for 10-12 days under repeated German attack until, directed by Joseph Joffre, the French Commander-in-Chief, they reached the south of the River Marne.

With victory seemingly near, Alexander von Kluck's German First Army was instructed to encircle Paris from the east. The French government, similarly expecting the fall of the capital, left Paris for Bordeaux.

Joseph Joffre, imperturbable in the face of crisis, resolved on 4 September to launch a counter-offensive strike, under the recommendation of the military governor of Paris, Gallieni, and aided by the British under Sir John French (the latter only after prompting by the British war minister, Lord Kitchener).

Joffre authorised General Maunoury's Sixth Army - comprising 150,000 men - to attack the right flank of the German First Army in an action beginning on the morning of 6 September. In turning to meet the French attack a 30 mile wide gap appeared in the German lines between the First and Second Army, the latter commanded by the cautious General Karl von Bulow.

The Allies were prompt in exploiting the break in the German lines, despatching troops from the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) to join the French Fifth Army in pouring through the gap between the two German armies, the right wing of Fifth Army simultaneously attacking the German Second Army.

Nevertheless, the German forces were close to achieving a breakthrough against Maunoury's beleaguered forces between 6-8 September, and were only saved on 7 September by the aid of 6,000 French reserve infantry troops ferried from Paris in streams of taxi cabs, 600 in all.

The following night, on 8 September, the aggressive French commander General Franchet d'Esperey's Fifth Army launched a surprise attack against the German Second Army, serving to further widen the gap between the German First and Second Armies. D'Espery was a recent appointment, Joffre having given him command of Fifth Army in place of the dismissed General Lanrezac, who was deemed too cautious and wanting in 'offensive spirit'.

On 9 September the German armies began a retreat ordered by the German Chief of Staff Helmuth von Moltke. Moltke feared an Allied breakthrough, plagued by poor communication from his lines at the Marne.

The retreating armies were pursued by the French and British, although the pace of the Allied advance was slow - a mere 12 miles in one day. The German armies ceased their withdrawal after 40 miles at a point north of the River Aisne, where the First and Second Armies dug in, preparing trenches that were to last for several years.

In a strategic triumph at the First Battle of the Marne, which ended on 10 September, the French forces - assisted by the British - had succeeded in throwing back the German offensive, recapturing lost ground in the process. More importantly, the battle ended any hopes the Germans had of effectively bringing the war on the Western Front to an early close.

Casualties at the battle were heavy. The French incurred 250,000 losses, and it is believed that the Germans suffered similar casualties (no official figures are available). The British recorded 12,733 casualties among the BEF.



---------------------------------------------
If it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger

The Allies were prompt in exploiting the break in the German lines, despatching troops from the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) to join the French Fifth Army in pouring through the gap between the two German armies, the right wing of Fifth Army simultaneously attacking the German Second Army.

Nonsense a flagrant lie, a propaganda told over and overe. It was the 5th army alone that entered the gap, the BEF was too busy retreating.

Eric:

I know but it's all you can find on the web. But that one is not too biased imo. Did you read the book ? (it exists in french)
I'm preparing something about how history, despite it's about FACTS, is interpreted differently in different country.
My example will be the Monte Cassino / Garigliano battle. later.



---------------------------------------------
If it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger

I know but it's all you can find on the web. But that one is not too biased imo. Did you read the book ? (it exists in french)
I'm preparing something about how history, despite it's about FACTS, is interpreted differently in different country.
My example will be the Monte Cassino / Garigliano battle. later.

No I didn't but I have many books on WW1 written by Englishmen, they all claimed that the BEF entered the gap with the 5th army. But I have Cambridge encyclopedia on WW1 (respect to cambridge to write history as accurately as possible). THey have like more than 20 of the finest historians in europe working on the matter not just from England. Therefore the source is not biased and very legitimate. During Marnes they clearly mentioned that the BEF was retreating and demoralised and it was the 5th army that entered the gap. They even did run a topic on Lanrezac and how he alone managed to see what was going on the battlefield. His army stopped at the right moment and at the right place when everyone else was retreating. They even saw the British passing them, how can they have entered the gap.

About history being bias, amen. History is intepreted differently by different people. Good you are one of those who sees that. Usually on the internet most texts are in english and written by Englishmen from a very English POV. So to be taken with a pint of salt. Just have a look at the battle of Tourcoing, we french interpret it another way. In french history, the allies outnumberd the french by 90,000 to 72,000 in English history, they only outnumbered us slightly. Yet the description of the battle clearly shows the british version is propaganda.

You french ,are currently rewritting world war two...but thats another debate.


Eryz,you use a enclopedia ahead of proper ww1 books for your evidence?? just because it tells you what you want to hear?

I dont want to piss about on this debate for long because i know you will never change your mind.But it is a simple fact that both british,german etc etc historians agree on.That without BEF intervention the french would have lost ww1.

'They even did run a topic on Lanrezac and how he alone managed to see what was going on the battlefield. His army stopped at the right moment and at the right place when everyone else was retreating. They even saw the British passing them, how can they have entered the gap.'


Lanzerac,the man who was commanding the french forces on the right of the british at the battle of mons.The man that withdrew his soldiers in disorder without even telling the British that he was retreating???


As for demoralized and retreating in disorder the british did anything but that.


'Our first battle is a heavy, unheard of heavy, defeat, and against the English - the English we laughed at.'

Walter Bloem, Reserve Captain, 12th Brandenburg Grenadier Regiment, in his autobiographical work, 'Vormarsch'


'Altogether, the British commanders were not ill-satisfied with the day's work. The men, too, were in high spirits, for they had met superior numbers of the most highly renowned army in the world and had given a good account of themselves'

From 'The long trail'

I dont want to piss about on this debate for long because i know you will never change your mind.But it is a simple fact that both british,german etc etc historians agree on.That without BEF intervention the french would have lost ww1.

Nope, it's not without the BEF, it is without te british overhall. The contribution of the BEF is only psychological rather than real. The BEF was too small a force to have a ignificant effect on the battlefield. Later did the english field larger armies.