>>18051773
>Germany shouldn't ever have fought against anyone yada yada yada
>meanwhile these standards don't apply to anyone else except the fascist antisemitic Romanovs

Please stop.

>>18051773
Schlieffen Plan is a romanticized myth. He wrote a lot of things, one of which was a hypothetical invasion of France. It wasn't a master plan, it was a thought experiment. Germans latched on to this specific writing in their attempt to scapegoat to Moltke the Younger.
If they had paid more attention to the rest of his writings, they would have found this from 1901:
>According to current theory, modern means of communication have made the command of million-man armies as easy and sure as an earlier corps of 15,000 to 20,000 men. While this may be true in one’s own land, the telegraph will not suffice in enemy territory; it has already proven itself unreliable in maneuvers. Wet weather and difficult roads stop the cyclist; automobiles are subject to endless difficulties... It is to be hoped that improvements in these areas will make the distribution of orders easier and simpler. At present, however, the armies consist of masses that are ever more difficult to control and ever less maneuverable.
Which is far more prescient for Germany's failure in France than "Moltke didn't follow Schlieffen's precise operational scheme!"

>>18051773
"Belgium isn't a real country" - Nigel Farage

Well, duh. Count Alfred von Schlieffen aimed to avoid a two-front war: France in the west, Russia in the east.

It literally never existed, Terence Zuber was right about everything.
WW1 historiography is filled to the brim with French and British lies.

>>18051790
>Which is far more prescient for Germany's failure in France than "Moltke didn't follow Schlieffen's precise operational scheme!"
I think the main problem was really that Britain didn't stay neutral, unlike in 1871, which was of course due to Belgium.

130k extra soldiers at the First Battle of the Marne meant Germany fought under numerical inferiority