How Would You Change or Replace the Schlieffen Plan?

>>3186933
don't do war

>>3186933
I have an entirely different idea, yes. Stop wasting money on a fleet and pissing off England when you have no real way to compete with them on the water, forge ties with Russia and the UK, and stop treating international diplomacy like a zero sum game of beat your rivals. There's NOTHING Germany could possibly gain in a war in the immediate future that justifies the expense and trouble said war is likely to have.

Also, if you're worried about British blockades in the eevent of something or other, forge strong economic ties with the USA, not with those piddling Latin American countries. THe Americans might not care if we get blockaded for its own sake, but they will get upset if their profits are being cut into, and ultimately, that's a far better security measure than a giant ass fleet that's still less than what the British have and you have virtually no means of projecting it outside the North Sea anyway.

File: thumbs_up.gif (2MB, 500x390px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x390px

>>3186954
This is now a pacifist thread.

What the fuck is with Germans and using treachery to win?

>Betray Varus and have to sneak like a bitch to win Teutoberg
>Betray Belgium and have to sneak like bitch to try to beat France

Build more machine guns
Walk a few hundred kilometers over the French border
Stay there

I read somewhere that the Schliffen Plan was a thought experiment to convince the German general staff to raise more standing divisions, and not an actual plan for victory. So do that I guess

>>3186974
>betray belgium
They weren't allied

>>3187008
Prussia signed the paper guaranteeing Belgian neutrality and so Germany was bound to it

>>3187020
>mere
>scrap
>of
>paper

>>3186933
6. army Conquer Nancy with the help of 7 Army.
6 army stay at Nancy 7 Army reinforced attack Epinal.
1 army stop conquest on Lille.
2 army stop conquest on Maubeuge
4 army conquest Montemedy
3 army Conquest Mezieres
3 and 4 army conquer Reims
5 is good to go.
I know German army is pretty good but supply lines always worry me.

File: large.png (205KB, 1008x568px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1008x568px

>>3187070
>This can't be happening, I'm the one in charge!

>>3187089
WAS LIBERATING YOUR MINORITIES PART OF YOUR PLAN?

>>3186933
Strike through the Ardennes toward Sedan, worked in 1871. Can't possibly have resulted in a worse slog than hindsight shows us Schlieffen's Plan did.

Basically in a two opposite front wars - Russia and France - they needed to take one out fast and then focus on the other.
France was favored, because firstly they would mobilize faster, and secondly there was just less land to cover before taking their core cities, and thirdly there was better infrastructure to use to get there.
I don't think going after Russia first and turtling France would've been viable. It has to be France first, quick knockout, then Russia.

So the question is surprise in the north, hoping for quick Belgian surrender, or go south, and hope to break the french.
You are asking for alternative to the first, I suggest the second. French had fortifications there, but maybe the British would stay out of the war that way.

File: ypres.png (94KB, 280x888px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 280x888px

STRENGTHEN
THE
SOUTHERN
WING

im still not sure it would've work as well as it did in the Franco-Pr*ssian war though
Paris getting captured would be more of a domino effect in convincing that the entente lost rather than a straight capitulation

File: 555.png (76KB, 959x573px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 959x573px

>>3187171
they would've get bogged down in the Ardennes,and they're not going to have the superior speed and air cover that they had like in WW2

>>3187194
Maybe without Britain joining the war, they can fight it out, dunno.
Its the only alternative to the Schlieffen Plan. Really, it was their best shot, and Belgium slowing them down too much won the war.

>>3186974
Everything to win!
but we will complain about others not being honorable

Even though the plan was a generation old and written by some dude who would never have to fight it, it would have worked to a T if followed. But then again, you had a general who was average in all respects told to follow an old ass plan for the survival of the german nation. Oh and the Russians mobilized faster than predicted and making its way towards the Prussian homelands good luck!

Simply not transfer troops to the east. Then the Battle of the Marne would not have occurred and the push to envelop the French would continue. The war would have been a modern repeat of the Franco Prussian War and the British were very close to bailing.

Now what the French would choose to do in this scenario would be difficult to know. I think most likely they would have thrown everything they had to ineffective slaughter and then the war would end quicker on the western front. Germany would in time destroy Russia and Kaiserreich would occur.

However, the fall of the Turks and AH will happen at some point.

>>3186933
Germany fucked up being dragged into the first war in the first place. They played their diplomatic hand, dealt by Bismark, like fucking idiots. The Austrians were in trouble well before the outbreak of war. It should have been clear that they would be insufficient allies. Germany went out of its way to compete with the Bongpire (now al-Bongistan) for naval dominance even though the bongs had a massive head start and had no natural theatres where they were in competition with the Germans. Germany should have invested in a cost effective power projection type force for its colonial possessions, of a size appropriate for her colonial possessions.
Look at Chynah, today. CN v US is an analogous situation to Germany v UK in 1910. An ascendant power and an established power. The Chinese approach is one of patience, and persistence. They wait until they feel totally ready to actually compete in an arena, then only do so as much as benefits China. Avoiding exhaustive and expensive arms races by just being patient, and building an appropriate force for their objectives. Investing in training, doctrinal and technology platforms like the Xia and Han subs before committing to building a large force that suits Chinas needs. Same with the aircraft carrier, a training platform that allows China to get a feel for what a carrier is actually useful for. They aren't just pumping out flat tops ill suited to their requirements or based on an integration of foreign doctrine, a la the Dreadnought race, where Germany invested in lots of ships but never built the institutional knowledge to use them properly or leverage the advantages of differing designs.

>>3186933
Also German ships were designed for shorter cruises than British ships, and were more logistically intensive to maintain. A more logical German approach would be to identify who is an actual threat (Russia, maybe France) and build a force better suited to operations against those forces, and instead of rushing to out compete the Brits, simply be patient.
And not get caught up with Austria-Hungary. Germany just needed to chill, hit the SimCity and be patient.
The War was really stupid and the whole world would have won more if it never happened. That's how Germany conquers France, the momentum was so inevitable that it's finally happening anyway.

>>3187089
>czechoslovakia
What a stupid ass meme country that was. Hitler definitely did something right by eliminating it

>>3187201
>Maybe without Britain joining the war, they can fight it out, dunno.
Britian was ALWAYS going to join the war, no matter what Germany did. Britain felt threatened by Germany due to it's naval armament, and if Germany crushed France it would threaten Britain even more so of course they were going to join the Entente at some point.

>>3186933

With the benefit of hindsight, I would just camp the border with France, and defeat Russia in two years, while allowing France to soak up casualties in trench offensives. Without a Belgian invasion, Britain doesn't join the war, and Germany is not blockaded.

Occupy Luxembourg but otherwise play defense on the Western Front while devoting the majority of resources to overwhelming Russia after the Battle of Tannenberg; seek to be in Riga by 1916.. Britain will still likely join the war but after a few months rather than immediately. After Russia capitulates, transfer forces to the West and invade France in a manner similar to 1870.

File: dgw kein kaiserreich.jpg (79KB, 601x590px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 601x590px

>>3186959
this

>>3187587
This. British policy was always to maintain a balance of power in Europe, so Germany not building a navy to appease Britain would only weaken them further when the inevitable came.

>>3187587

The British cabinet was pretty firmly against war up until the point that Belgium was invaded, and even then it was a narrow vote.

pro tip: send Lenin to Great Britain, not Russia

>>3186933

1. Don't invade Belgium under any circumstances

2. Don't build any battleships, instead build a network of forts and blockhouses in Western Germany.

3. No U-boats. Don't even think about it.

4. Fight a purely defensive war on the western front.

5. Focus 75% of all troops on fighting Russia, devote only 25% to the western front.

And there you have it. Germany easily wins WW1.

>>3188860
pppwhahahahhahaahah
i can tolerate armchair generals, but this is just nonsensical

>suck britain's cock
>fondle britain's balls
>savor the taste of britain's milk
>and there you go, german supremacy

zero insight into how politics work

>>3186933
Maintain the borders with a strong defense, using a travelling squadron of mages to break the stalemate and allow territorial gains.

>>3188860
The vast distances that cover the Eastern Front is a problem in itself
The G*rmans were able to win due to absorbing the Russian attack and continually grinding them down
Also attacking Russia might benefit the Russian morale,now the Tsar could rally on the land being threatened itself and also simplifying her own supply lines and actually capitalising on using
artillery,which is their strongest asset
Everyone in the war got their head stuck on their asses about the cult of the attack,it worked very well for Napoleon because the scale was much simpler,and he actually lost his grip when Campaign started getting bigger such as in the fifth coalition and they dont have the high level of communication to permit it like in WW2 Pure defense is also untenable,it was a losing war if the Krauts just defends and the allied tactic would improve over time culminating to tanks,creeping barrage and combined assault eventually and the french are actually very potent attackers with their 75.A counter attack oriented strategy would work best

>>3186933
Germany could have won a conventional war against France and Russia. Without the attack through Belgium the British Empire lacks the motivation to enter the war.

The solution is to prepare for a defensive war in the west and an offensive war in the East.

After Russia is beaten - and in this timeline the Tsar will be a lot more likely to enter peace talks after Gorlice-Tarnow with only France on the other side rather than both France and the UK - focus on the west. Although when Russia drops out of the war, France will very likely enter peace talks as well.

>>3190681

Yeah cause what they did in real-life worked out so well. Why try anything different?

>>3191285
What they did in real life was the best case scenario.
Germany was just weaker, and any change in their plan would result in an even worse loss.
There is something to be said about losing quickly and decisively, thus preserving human lives, but this isn't what he is going for anyways.