Germany Should Not Have Invaded Belgium in WW1

My opponent makes the argument that that if Germany had won the Battle of the Marine, the Schiflien plan would have worked out. However, at this point in history the Shiflien Plan had already failed! The French Army was not cut off and had redeployed to face the German offensive. The railway network was far to advanced for an ambitious knockout blow the the Plan to work. Making things worse, the Belgians destroyed their railways before the Germans captured them. This meant the German army had to march all the way to the French border. Does any one really think that, in an age before mechanized warfare, the Germans could have marched to Paris and cut off the French before the French could redeploy using rail? No, of course not, this what makes the plan so unusable for it's time. It calls for a quick blitzkrieg-like knock out blow before mechanized vehicles to exploit breakthroughs, such as the one called for in the plan, even existed. It also calls for offensives in an age where machine guns and railways gave defenders a distinct advantage. So what if the Germans Win at the Marne? Con envisions a scenarios were German troops are not sent east, Germany wins at Marne, and the Austrians hold the east. To accept that this could happen we must first assume that the troops sent would have guaranteed victory. Let's assume that they would, where does that put Germany. The French government had already relocated to Bouduex along with the Bank of France's monetary reserves. The Germans would have to starve Paris out while the French regrouped. Just because Paris falls, it doesn't mean France is just going to throw in the towel. Paris is just a city. Now, the Germans have to defend much longer then the one they defended historically. The French army would be able to counter attack while Paris was tying down a large part of the German army or while German troops are sent east to help Austria. Because France destroyed her railroads lines during the retreat, Germany cannot bring up her artillery, making a slog around paris were the french have a 2:1 artillery advantage very hard to win. This plan also relies on the Austrians not collapsing which would be a miracle in and of it's self. Why Attack Russia? Con says that the Germans shouldn't attack Russia because St. Petersburg was far away. This is a throwback to the outdated concept that you have to capture someones capital to defeat them. In 1905, the Japanese defeated the Russians decisively in the Russo-Japanese war without coming anywhere close to St Petersburg. Con might also compare invading russia with Hitler's and Napoleon's attempts, but those overly ambitious attempts to drive to Moscow in one campaign, something no one in the German Command was even thinking of. Con also says that Russians are weak and while take some time to deploy giving Germany a chance to defeat France. While that is true, remember, France had to be totally knocked out, or else the British will enter the war and were Germany down through blockade, and there was virtually no chance of France getting knocked out in 1914. This begs the question, shouldn't one attack were his enemy is weak rather then were they are strong? Instead of seeing Russia's deployment time as a short window to launch a hare brained scheme, why not use it to overrun poland? It's also worth noting that France will only grow weaker while Russia will only grow stronger. France's political unity was eventually worn down and probably wouldn't even exist if french commanders simply smashed their army's against a fortified german border. The Russians officer corp will improve throughout the war, as will their logistics which had improved enormously by 1916. The germans were able to deal with this in 1915 by going on the defensive in the west while shifting forces to the east. However, if con's scenario happens, the Germans will not be able to do this as they are tied down by Paris as well as a massive front to defend. Russia is politically unstable and if Germany fully commits to the east, they could bring Russia to the table in two years or so. The Russian command will have to totally reorganize their plans as everything will be disrupted by the rapid German advance. There isn't much of a threat from France in this plan either. It took France AND Britain four years to break Germans lines in the west. In my scenario, Britan is not in the war, Germany is defending a smaller, more fortified line, and France is not united a struggle to take back their land. If Germany ask both powers to negotiate they will be hard pressed to say no. France is simply watching it's soldiers die for mere yards of foreign soil, how will the french socialist react I wonder? Russians will be tired of seeing army after army destroyed by a far superior military force just to maintains foreign lands such as poland. Make no mistake the Russians are not going to unite like they did in WW2. That's because they are fighting on foreign soil (poland/ukraine) against an enemy willing to negotiate and who isn't committing war crimes like the Nazis. Let's Go Over The Plans Cons Plan: Leaves the Austrians to collapse Brings Britain into the war. Creates the blockade that eventually causes germany to collapse. Allows the russians time to improve their logistics. Commits to a war of attrition in the west that Germany can't win. My Plan Allows Germany to commit to a far more beatable enemy. Doesn't bring in Britain No Blockade Tests Frances resolve by forcing them to fight on a very fortified frontier on foreign soil. Historically, France's 1914 attempt to assault this border was a disaster. In the end, cons plan failed in history. It was a gamble that France was going to go all out on the border and not be able to redeploy in time. Historically it failed. Regardless what happens around Paris, trench warfare will set on and Germany will be trapped in a war of attrition that it can't win. The blockade broke Germany internally and eventually forced them out of the war. My plan is less based on fantastic gambles and more on realistic objectives to win an industrial war in the early 20th century. http://mentalfloss.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.express.co.uk... http://www.thesophist.com... http://www.firstworldwar.com...