Do you think the Schlieffen Plan was inherently flawed then? Considering the railway networks Germany had at its disposal, would a first strike East been a better move? Since I was a child I was always told, and this is still true today, that Germany intended to defeat France first while Russia was still raising its armies, as Russia's mobilization was must slower. That being said, I have often wondered if that were the case, would it not have been a better strategy to hit Russia first while it was disorganized, while holding down France at the border? That would also avoided the consequence of violating Belgium's neutrality and ensuring the UK's entry into the war.
The Schlieffen Plan was too ambitious, the first Army had move west of Paris around and reach French and BEF troops from behind.
However the soldier's would exhaust from this forced march.
biggest issue for Germans was to fix the destroy French and Belgium railways and bridges.
Next to that have Russian faster mobilise as German expected, total failure of German secret service and Von Moltke, the Younger.
Lucky were Russian forces totally incompetent in combat with Germans...
Were Hindenburg appropriate the fame of his subordinates (
in fact he sleep during battle of Tannenberg)
Now on East Senario
in Alternate History forums, are allot discussion about this Senario.
Here The German attack with 7 armies, Russia first and defends with rest the West front of German Empire.
This Senario has interesting aspect were French Army demand to move true Belgium.
While Belgium King refuse do neutrality of Belgium !
Under 1839 Treaty of London is British Empire oblige to defend Belgium neutrality agains
every invader !
What could bring paradoxical situation that BEF take action against French forces in Belgium...
Theoretical could this war goes to 1917 were Russia collapse and goes for Peace,
While German forces move from East to west front for general attack on west front.