wolf_brother
Banned
If there really was an unresolved conflict, Schlieffen wouldn't retire in the middle of it, especially if war was just about to start. That would disorganize the general staff too much in the middle of a crisis.
IOTL von Schlieffen retired on January 1st, 1906. Germany had called up reserve units December 30th, 1905 and France began amassing troops along the border January 3rd, 1906. Obviously von Schlieffen would and did retire, regardless of any 'unresolved conflict.'
As for the rest, you can't merely set the Schlieffen Plan aside, as it is the primary component of contention in this debate. von Schlieffen's memorandum was a critique of the current German war plans and a suggestion of what should be done. If the Germans are using a 'Verdun Sweep' than von Schlieffen's critiques come into play, primarily being that the Germans don't have enough, and heavy enough, siege howitzers to take out the borders fortifications they will encounter (either in France or the Low Countries), and even by taking such a route they gain little as there are not enough parallel roads through that terrain that would be available to the Germans to facilitate the necessary rapid transfer of men and material needed to quickly close on the French flank before their opposite has time to properly react. As well, though the Germans had an enormous population lead over the French, according to von Schlieffen they didn't have enough troops to make the necessary actions required for the sweep while simultaneously keeping the French busy along the border.
Care to provide sources?
Your own source! Even Zuber explicitly states in Inventing the Schlieffen plan: German war planning, 1871-1914 that prior to the adaption of Plan XVbis in late spring 1906 the French plan dictated to hold a strong defensive line along the border, with reservist waiting to counter-attack once the German advance had been halted. Jeez, you've quoted these two sources enough I would have expected you to pick up on that right away.
Also what were the mistakes of the Franco-Prussia war? That the French allowed themselves to be tied to their forts and trapped. So your described plan has them cleaving to their forts again, something tried in 1870 with disastrous results. Though warfare had changed, do you really think French generals would try to do the same thing again?
The problem France faced in the Franco-Prussian War is the opposite of what will happen in this TL's Second Franco-Prussian War; numerical superiority. In 1870 the French had a professional, regular standing army of ~400,000 troops. Opposite them the Prussians and her German allies (satellite states) relied on conscripted armies, allowing for them to raise a force of some 1.2 million for the war. Here though, the French have a large standing army of universal conscription, and the Germans only use partial conscription, making up for the lack due to the population difference. The Germans won't be able to simply walk around the French and encircle them like they did in 1870, nor will they be able to effectively 'zerg-rush' them, nor will the war last long enough for them to suddenly install full conscription and draft, equip and train every able body they could use due to the earlier raised issue of the nitrates.
20 Machine guns or 2000 makes a massive difference. If just some light infantry had it or every regiment in the active army, we have a completely different debate. Now as far as the Germans bayonet charging forts, minus the one instance of trying to take Liege by surprise in 1914, the Germans and just about anyone else with combat experience ever in the history of warfare knows not to throw infantry against forts. That is PRECISELY the reason Germany invested so heavily in howitzers prewar. In fact they have more howitzers than any other army on the planet even at this time, for which they intend to use against French forts and field works (if they have any, French doctrine never called for them after the 1890's). If anything the Germans would approach the French fortifications and use the howitzers to blast a path forward. I'm not saying it wouldn't be bloody, but bayonet charges against forts was not doctrine...infantry on the other hand, yes.
<snip>
From what we have been arguing.
Ugh, now you're simply confusing me, I feel like your arguments are beginning to track in circles.