Do you think Germany would be able to push through French defenses

>>3341880
Not quickly. Limiting the war's scope to the Franco-German border sharply limits how many troops can effectively be brought to bear and more or less nullifies Germany's advantages in numbers and faster mobilization.

>>3341895
EXPLAIN

>>3341916
What exactly is unclear? I thought the statement was very straightforward.

>>3341916

The French/German border was mutually fortified. A direct attack on the border would allow the French to defend with many fewer men while the rest of the French army mobilized.

>>3341926
Well, where will the rest of their mobile army go?

>>3341880
The French managed to stop the German advance even though Germans avoided the fortified border, so it'd have been even worse

And it wouldnt have changed shit as Britain had already picked its side years before the start of the war

>>3341940
Not him, but why do they need to go anywhere? Germany's the one fighting a two front war against powers that have combined greater industrial and manpower pools and is facing increasing economic and diplomatic isolation. As long as the French don't lose, they win.

>>3341948
WRONG!

Britain was allies with Belgium, not France.
France was in WW1 long before Britain was

>>3341921
It is, anon ain't thinking right bro. =]

>>3341957
>Long before
>1 Day

>>3341957
>Britain was allies with Belgium, not France.

Wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Entente

>>3341968
>>3341966
>1 week FIFY
Britain declared war on Germany on the 4th of August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium.

Rhine+hilly terrain makes that very difficult

File: wwdf.png (45KB, 1058x485px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1058x485px

>>3341980
Britain declared war on Germany a day after Germany attacked France

Why are you so goddamn ignorant fss?
You don't know about the Triple Entente, you don't know about dates....wtf

>>3341990
Britain wasn't really loyal to the Triple entente, unlike Russia

>>3342005
You have no proof of that, as Germany gave them a convenient excuse to join the war on the Entente's side right after attacking the two other members

It's like claiming that France wasnt loyal to it either as they didnt attack Germany when it declared war on Russia

Had Germany not given Britain the convenient Belgium excuse, Britain would probably have still joined within a week

>>3342005
Do you really think GB would sit idly and watch France and Russia fight Germany, the country they despised the most at the time, alone? I know how anglos push up the "Violation of Belgian neutrality" narrative so much, but in reality that was just a CB, Germany had long challenged britian's naval and industrial might, Wilhelm II being a diplomatic retard didn't help either. Hell, all of this shit could've been avoided if they did not create a buffer country in the first place

>>3342029
Of course! Britain liked Germany in the 1800's.
and Germany never had plans to invade the UK.
Britain had a secret plan to invade France, hence the phony alliance.

If Germany never invaded Belgium, Britain wouldn't do anything.

>>3342049
The 1800s were not 1914. Prussia and Germany were completely separate in a diplomatic sense, Britain like Prussia because it could halt French or Russian aggrrssion, but Germany was a behemoth in every sense and shattered the balance of power.

>>3342049
Britain had already issued orders to engage the Germans on the high seas.