So the winning german strategy for ww1 would have been holding back on France and pushing Russia in early, right?

Believeable scenarios only please, this one requires Wilhelm to NOT be a complete autist

And if the French aren't colossally stupid and don't march out where you can flank them easily due to your larger army?

>french
>not naturally stupid
lmao

>The winning strategy would have been to not start a war just because your closest ally is an autist.

This. Germany had nothing to gain from war that could possibly be worth the cost. Avoiding war would be more beneficial than winning one.

What if the Germans broke through to Paris would it have become a siege or the war on the western from end right there and then?

Would the war*

They were truly fucked from the very beginning. They basically banked on the presumption that Britain would remain neutral despite every previous incident running up to WW1 had caused huge divides between the two powers. You would have thought Schlieffen would come up with a better plan to end a war than invading a country and starting another one

Also relying on the two walking corpses that were Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans I am actually surprised they lasted as long as they did.

If Russia didn't have another revolution and actually participated Germany would have surrendered so much quicker.

It would put a lot of pressure on the French government and I wouldn't be surprised if they capitulated to spare themselves the humiliation of having their capital seized.

>Schlieffen Plan actually worked pretty well
But it didn't, it failed in its only job of take Paris.

Yes, Germany had nothing to reasonably demand of France other then colonial holdings, by focusing on Russia first as willy wanted to, you keep Britain out of the war, by not focusing on France you don't give Brittain the impression you want a hegemony over western Europe that will but them and their colonial holdings in jeopardy.
Germany should have played defence against France using their small front with favourable positions to bleed the French. With Belgium staying neutral and the French very openly stating they want to retake their territory in the east, it forces them to be the aggressors, with the brits not having an easy means for declaring war or a direct threat from Germany this means blockading them becomes much more difficult.
Even if the Brits eventually join with the Belgians being fiercely neutral it gives the west a much smaller front that the Germans can bleed their evemy on, as long as they keep and contest the territory France wants to retake they are winning the war. And with how bad French moral got it is likely they would have sued for peace after their soldiers started threatening to quit the field if ordered forward it would have caused the French to pursue peace or change to a defensive war.
But this is all using hind sight and some guesses for how powers will act, because it is impossible to know for sure.

And to further note why pushing France harder would be bad, a large reason why the Germans did not accept the vassalization of Denmark years prior one of the reasons was to avoid gaining the Danish colonies and making themselves ac threat to England.

While the Shchlieffen Plan ultimately failed there are degrees in which something can fail. The plan involved punching through Belgium and taking Paris from the north. Of course the advance was bogged down a few dozen miles from Paris but it still came close in the first place. So while the plan was a failure the war would have evolved quite differently if the plan had failed completely if, say, the Germans didn't even penetrate Belgium in the first place for example. So I guess what I'm saying is there's a difference between a complete failure and a close failure.

But even if they took Paris what then? They have a hideously long front line, French have more reason to fight with their capital imperiled and the Germans look like the primary threat to brittish power meaning the brits will not stand for a hegemony of France and Germany, they have nothing to gain, taking Paris ultimately will account for very little, either France leaves the war, which is unlikely, you will still have a war with Belgium, and the Belgian resistance, and the United Kingdom.
Or France just continues the war in spite of the loss of Paris wanting revenge on the Germans, which is more likely as there was a lot of desire for revenge in France against the Germans.

Germany does not have a solid win condition for this war.

Germany started the war because they wanted to get rid of Russia since it was industrialising. If they didnt attack now then Russia would attack a few years later when it was ready.

potery

>russians crumbled like a house of cards
That's an overstatement.

every offensive of theirs against germany was parried. Don't try to tell me that pushing really hard wouldn't have kicked their shit in. Even with a weak touch all their offensives save the austrian ones were derailed

schilieffen plan probably would have worked if moltke hadn't strengthened the left flank for useless offensive actions which repelled french entanglement and weakened the right. Even then it's bulow's fault for not letting kluck flank and btfo the allied armies even more

Because over extended supply lines with rampant sabatours for a largely symbolic victory that brings a great power that can blockade you throughly is how you win wars. The French government was already moved to boredux by the time the Germans could have taken Paris, and if you think the French would surrender at either time when the Germans were close to Paris you are frankly wrong first time you have the Russians and brittish involved, second time the Russians had bowed out but the United states had just entered the war.
Taking Paris was a stupid plan for a very different time and war.

I already posted this on another thread, figure I'd repost here. Mention of Verdun warrants this.
This is the story of a German soldier at Fort Douamont who really wanted some coffee.

>be me
>be german soldier stationed at fort douaumont
>shelling on the frog-eaters is constant, but everything's pretty boring atm
>decide to cheer up with some coffee
>acquire tin and kettle, but there's no wood to burn the fire
>remember there's flamethrower fuel in the munitions room
>pour into another pot
>light
>burns really well, then I notice I accidentally poured some fuel outside of the pot
>starts trailing towards some of the munitions
>schiesse.photograph
>proceed to run, not bother to tell anyone
>make it outside and run to the reserve trench
>hear explosions and screaming
>biggerbertha.motionpicture
>just hide in the reserve trench
>the reserve trench starts shooting, they think it's a frog-eater african colonial attack
>look out of reserve trench
>it's the guys from the fort covered in ash and soot, running from the hellstorm
>they are being shot by the reserve trench
>notice the guy next to me is drinking some coffee to help him deal with what he just saw and partook in
>offers me a drink
>refuse
>casualties are read the next day
>about 600 died in a fire because i was bored
>another 100-200 were shot from the reserve trench
>mfw

Yes just like it was for ww2

>rampant sabatours
the western front had no serious supply problems, you mong

>Wiped out entire towns to punish sabatours actions in Belgium
>No problems

The western front was largely static, you idiot. Supply issues are most pronounced in highly mobile warfare, because your draft horses carrying supplies move a lot slower than marching infantry. The Schlieffen plan, as outlined by Schlieffen, was not static at all, which was the whole point, but simultaneously what made it impossible.

Bump