Actually, I would call it "Rubbing two braincells together". Révanche has been official french policy since 1871 and few, if any, people would trust the French to keep their word when opportunity presents itself. Therefore, the additional securities demanded would make it impossible to take the opportunity. The fact that they were never presented to the french government speaks volumes about the german expectation on french behaviour. Namely that they will, no ifs, not buts, no whens, declare a war if a chance of victory presents itself. Therefore, they are treated accordingly.You wa t to call it mistrust?
But wait, aren't you the one with the sweeping assertions and proclamations? The burden of proof is on you. You assert and assert and assert, and the others present proof of opposing view and counterargument. And yet, you reply to me who disgresses only in interpretation. Can't touch the others, can you? If you can, prove it. And I am still waiting on the proof from the other thread where you so sweepingly asserted that the French would roll over a line the failed to penetrate OTL. Even worse they hurt themselves quite badly attempting to do so.Maybe you need a map for illustration of on how narrow a front the french would need to break through. This thread has a good one. Mind you, this is the day and age of "Attaque à outrance", the shell crisis and little to no fortress-buster artillery on the attacker side and a fortified border and difficult terrain on the defender side. In hindsight, it is little surprising to see the French failing badly. And yet, you proclaim loudly and certainly that they will break through and occupy all the Rhineland in a matter of day. Maréchal Joffre, is that you?
Really? Ever heard the term "opportunity cost"? I'd reccommend you read the various military theorists, starting with Clausewitz and Sun Tzu who go on at length about the interrelation of opportunity and victory.Fine but if the mistrust isn't backed by fear, it doesn' matter
Only if the Germans are afraid of what the French wi do does mistrust matter
Knock out France, then deal with the Russians. Although this points out how far out your "The Germans are afraid of the French" argument is. You don't make a plan which relies on knocking out the weaker enemy first to free up all forces for the harder foe, if you are afraid of said weaker enemy.If the Germans thought they could hold the West with four armies against a hostile France, why not put four armies in the West and go East?
To consider such a thing in the first place, you need a minimum of trust. And since "Révanche!" and black-coloured A-L on school maps and so an and so forth, such trust was inexistent. The only thing the german army trusted the French to do was to attack. Therefore, the demand for securites which would make a betrayal impossible. It is very german, I suppose. "Geordnete Verhältnisse" and all that.If the French stay neutral, your spared an enemy If they break their word, you can stil
Defend yourself.
See the rest of the thread for why this absolute statement is false.Instead, the Germans take this East first idea and reject it