Germany Should Not Have Invaded Belgium in WW1

Plotting the Course of the Schlieffen Plan Beyond the Battle of the MarneMy opponent counters my claim that, had the Germans won the Battle of the Marne, the takeover of France would have likely been inevitable. The Battle of the Frontiers had all but destroyed the BEF and the French 5th army, requiring the 3rd and 4th armies be pulled from their attacks on Alsace and Lorraine. They exploited a gap between the German 1st and 2nd armies, one that could have easily been filled by the German 8th army, at that time in the Eastern front. Had that gap been closed, it is likely the French 3rd and 4th armies would not have fared that well during the battle. The 1st and 2nd armies were tied down facing the German 6th and 7th armies, so they would have been unable to come to their aid. The newly formed French 9th army was too raw to have been that effective, and could easily have been annihilated. Thus, we see that all of the allied forces that were in France at the time would either have been broken or tied down facing other armies, leaving Paris a prime target. After capturing Paris, which wouldn't have taken that long with no other French armies on the field, especially given the strength of the German artillery, the German 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th armies could have swung around and surrounded the French 3rd and 4th armies. With France's capital captured and all of their standing armies either captured or significantly depleted, the French would have had to sue for peace. [1][2]The Battle of the Marne occurred in early September, and it seems reasonable to assume that all of this would have been over by early October. The troops could then be shuttled to the Eastern front in just a few days (with two or three armies left behind to deal with any potential British invasion) to deal with the Russians. With a near full strength German and Austria-Hungarian force, Russia could easily have been pushed back and eventually defeated (or maybe even brought to terms beforehand, considering France, its largest ally, was just defeated). Also, the Germans had more artillery, and more powerful artillery, than the French did. [3]Where Would Great Britian Have Been in This? One of my opponent's critical assumptions is that, if the Germans had attacked the Russians and forced the French to attack, that Britain would not have entered the war. Ostensibly, this appears to be right, since Britain cited Germany's invasion of Belgium as the reason it entered WWI. However, there are two problems with this. One, Britain was part of the Triple Entente alliance with both France and Russia. Even if the Germans had not gone through Belgium and instead attacked France right on the Franco-German border, Britain would probably have seen entered the war. Similarly, if the Germans had decided to attack Russia, Britain would probably have entered the war as well. The nature of these military-political alliances made this likely. But more importantly, there was a huge Anglo-German rivalry that preceded WWI. Germany was determined to increase its standing in the Western world, and the way it decided to do so was to antagonize Britain on a number of fronts. This had a crucial effect on who entered WWI. ". .. it was critical for war that Germany become economically more powerful than Britain. .. The German invasion of Belgium was not important because the British decision had already been made and the British were more concerned with the fate of France. Kennedy wrote that by far the main reason was London's fear that a repeat of 1870 - when Prussia and the German states smashed France - would mean Germany would gain control the English Channel and north-west France. British policy makers insisted that would be a catastrophe for British security. " British strategists would likely have seen an invasion of Russia, and most certainly a successful campaign in Russia, as enough to attack Germany. The fact that Britain was trying to weaken Germany implies that Britain would have supported France in its attack, particularly if Germany's campaign in Russia was going well. [4]And with Britain in the war, a blockade would have inevitably followed. Problems With Attacking RussiaThe total number of Russian casualties in the Russo-Japanese war was around 43,300. The outcome of the war was the loss of Russian influence in Manchuria and Korea, and the loss of half of Sakhalin Island. This victory by the Japanese can hardly be considered decisive enough to warrant calling this equivalent to the defeat the Germans would have needed to have inflicted on the Russian during WWI to knock them out of the war. While Napoleon's and Hitler's strategies were flawed, looking at their attempts was well as earlier attempts by Swedish and Polish forces (separately), we see that a successful invasion of Russia, one where the Russians fully capitulate and relinquish control of their military, is extremely hard, and saying that the Germans in WWI could have easily beaten Russia is a very long stretch. [5][6]While Russia's mobilization time was longer than the rest of the European powers, it did not take that long. I said in the last round that it only took three weeks. This is not nearly enough time to complete an attack of Russia, especially considering Russia would have the advantage of interior lines for constant reinforcement and resupply, meaning that at least a portion of the army could have attacked the Germans earlier. If Germany had attacked France first, Russia would have had to complete its mobilization, destroy the Austrian-Hungarian forces in Galicia, and march deep into the hearts of Germany and Austria-Hungary, all of which would have taken a considerable amount of time, and certainly would have taken long enough for Germany to defeat France with a stronger force and swing back to the East. On national unity, while it is true that France would have been less unified if they were attacking, they would never have fallen apart over an offensive war, failed or otherwise. The divisions between the French were much less crippling than those that plagued Russia. However, if Russia had been attacked, they would have been more unified. Part of the reason Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown was because it was making little headway in its attack of Germany, costing the lives of many men and supplies. If Russia was defending itself, it is more than likely that a revolt would never have happened, and all of the resources of the nation committed to defense. The Problem of Having Germany Defend Against FranceFrance had a plan before WWI for attacking Germany known as Plan XVII. It involved the French armies navigating around the sparser German defense in Alsace and Lorraine, taking the defenses individually, and uniting to knock out any force sent to oppose it. The plan looked something like this: You can notice that the Germans had much fewer defenses on the Franco-German border than the French did. The only major defensive structures were located in Metz and Strasbourg, which were almost 50 miles apart, whereas the French had a much more complete and connected system of defense, with major defensive structures locate in Verdun, Toul, Epinal, and Belfort, smaller, more wall-like structures between Verdun and Toul, as well as between Epinal and Belfort, and small defensive structures around Nancy. Therefore, whereas a frontal assault by the Germans against the French positions was impractical, the same was not true in the reverse. A quick mobilization by the French would have easily allowed them to circle and besiege Metz, and brush aside any token forces sent by the Germans in time around Strasbourg. By this time, the French would have gained massive momentum with the German forces incoming to stop them. Of course, the French failed to do much on that front during WWI, but that was because of poor offensive tactics, the fact that three German armies met them on the field, instead of the one or two that would have greeted them if the Germans had decided to attack Russia, and the fact that the BEF, and French 4th and 5th armies were not on that front. [7]ConclusionAn offensive war against Russia would have required a massive amount of work, particularly with supply and communication lines, and would have faced Russia on territory they knew, with internal lines, easier resupply, and the morale boost of a defensive war. An offensive war against France would have been much more likely to knock one of them out of the war, because the Schlieffen plan was good enough to do so. Any other plan would have resulted in a less desirable outcome. Sources[1]: . http://www.greatwar.co.uk...[2]: . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3]: Mosier, John, The Myth of the Great War[4]: . https://en.wikipedia.org...[5]: . http://necrometrics.com...[6]: . http://www.britannica.com...[7]: . https://en.wikipedia.org...