Moving back to military moves etc, good, all that moralistic and British cabinet shit is irritating.
I'd point out that from December 1912 the German government assumed Britain would be a combatant, nothing was lost by invading Belgium which was Britain's cassus belli. Without Belgium in August 1914 there likely would be some other incident or 'mistake' that would bring Britain into the war, perhaps something like the Dogger Bank Incident in the Russo Japanese war where the Russian fleet attacked British fishing boats in the North Sea thinking they were Japanese for some unfathomable reason.
A few people have mentioned that Moltke's plan needed 'luck', for the French to make mistakes. What is meant by that? The German Army was qualitatively superior to the French Army, the masses of indirect fire howitzers being one huge example but there are several others, so it's victories are no quirk of fate.
Another thing, grabbing the French territory taken in Aug-Nov 1914 was a far bigger blow to the Entente than the Russian Territory taken Apr-Sep 1915. Is there any doubt about that?
Germans apparently assumed so, but in hindsight it was not guaranteed. I'd call it 50/50, if Britain would have joined the war.
But even if they do, how much enthusiasm they got for the endeavour is still meaningful. Germany overrunning France and ending their great power status is a massive threat to Britain, but Russia being carved up to a bunch of nations that are more or less sympathetic towards Germany is much less so. The latter would make a diplomatic solution in Western front much more achievable. I mean, as @kham_oc said, even in OTL the Brits demanded Germany leaving France and Belgium.
I mean, Germany is unlikely to win a war where everybody is willing to slug it off to the bitter end, so maybe it's better to not go all-in and try to be a little bit more subtle?
The lines were established when the retreating Germans stopped. Naturally, they stopped at the most defensible spots. The line along the Aisne River is as good as it gets - a hundred feet wide and fifteen feet deep.
Why would the French attack into the Vosges? Like the Germans they will go through the Ardennes because it's the only route available. The only fortifications the Germans have there are Metz Thionville which is designed to cover the German assembly. The complex is easily bypassed through Belgium and Luxembourg.
The best line would be the Saar which is what Moltke the elder picked
I'm sorry, but this is contrary to almost everything I have heard before about WW1. As far as I know, the French didn't want to risk going through Belgium for political reasons (that would basically guarantee Britain staying out). Also, almost everywhere it has been said, that the OTL French offensives failed miserably in 1914. Why would they do better in this scenario?
The Germans never defeated Russia. The Ottomans did with their blockade. The Germans don't know if the Ottomans will join on August 1st when the decision has to be made.
The Germans go East in 1915. All they do is chase the Russians around Poland while Britain and France build up their strength. It accomplished nothing. Brusilov proves that in 1916 with his offensive that shatters what remained of Austria.
Nor is there any reason to think the Germans are holding the West with five let alone four armies. They never tried it.
I haven't heard of this either - do you have a source? Russia could have still been supplied through Murmansk.
Also, obviously the Germans never tried to hold West with five armies, as they went with the Schlieffen plan! This doesn't prove anything!
If Germany wins in the east, it's likely to come out of that the de-facto or actual ruler of Eastern Europe / chunks of western Russia. On top of that AH will likely be pretty much dominant to the Black sea (we've not mentioned AH much).
Britain does not want that. Britain might at times like to give the impression it's above what goes on on the continent but it knows it it can't ignore it (e,g. Napoleon's continental system etc). Certainly it doesn't want the nation that's challenging it in the 'biggest naval dick measuring contest' doing that.
France also doesn't want it because it knows if it happens best case scenario is it will be dominated on the continent (and France is a continental power), worse case scenario it will be next.
And once the fighting has started and blood and resources committed it's hard to withdraw with nothing to show for it except a stronger opponent and the threat of round two with them to come.
I'm sure Britain would not like it, but it's another matter to sell the war to their public with this when they are experiencing extremely heavy casualties. Germany overrunning France and Belgium while ending up at the Channel is a massive threat to Britain, and an easy way to motivate their population and army. Russia being carved up into numerous small states is much less of a problem, and if the Germans can present this as a fait accompli to Britain in 1916 while not having territorial ambitions in the West, a compromise peace would be much more likely than in OTL.
As has been said, OTL British demands to Germany were to evacuate France and Belgium - what do they demand from them if Germany never occupied them to begin with?
I grant that this is still a gamble, but IMO a much better one than the Schlieffen plan.
