Hiya! I'm not a professional historian but I do know a bit about the German armed forces (called "Deutsches Heer" at the time) during WW1.

So from what little information I know & what I can gather from some quick last minute research is this...

As we know Germany was fighting a two front war in WW1, which was a worry of the Kaiser's from as early as 1894 with the Franco-Russian Alliance. Britain had seen France & Russia as potential enemies at one point, however decides to ally with both of them to secure her empire in 1904 (Entente Cordiale with France) & 1907 (Anglo-Russian Entente) respectively forming the The Triple Entente. This new & unlikely friendship between the allied powers heightened Germany's fear of encirclement and deepened the divide among the European powers. Imperial rifts worsened these divisions and tensions. When Germany tried to oppose a French takeover of Morocco, Britain supported France. Even though it was basically Germany's fault for this shakeup because unification in 1871 had a big effect on Europe (Because of Bismarck's "Realpolitik" policy to unite the German states as one, I think preferably in his mind as "Kleindeutschland" or "Lesser/Smaller Germany" which would exclude Austria, because both Prussia & Austria were big powers and big contenders for the question as to how & who would run Germany, this is known as "The German Question")

Now we've got some background covered, I can try & attempt to answer your question; Germany were often successful in planning an executing their military operations, however if Europe was a casino, Germany would be placing big money on the two-front war & Austria-Hungary (A-H) as an ally. When it came to the two front war, Germany as I stated above were often successful more surprisingly on the eastern front (to begin with) than the western front. However Germany's other gamble the one with A-H went wrong. Niall Ferguson makes the claim that "the gamble went wrong" Germany had to divert their troops from the Western front & some areas of the eastern front to help support A-H. Germany was in no way prepared or really equipped to be doing this however does it anyways to help out it's ally. "The Germans did not have a strategy as is confirmed by [Erich] Ludendorff's erratic behaviour & sometimes inconsiderate actions during WW1" Hew Strachan argues that "for Ludendorff, If a breakthrough could be effected then strategy could follow". An example that I could find of this poor strategy was "The 1918 Spring Offensive" also known as Kaiserschlacht (Kaiser's Battle), The Ludendorff Offensive & The Michael Offensive. Germany was pushing forwards through the weakest part of French & British lines in northern France, heading towards Paris, Germany gained masses of territory within a few weeks. Anyone would mistakenly think Germany's en route to victory, they were not. Though Germany had gained, they had no way of supplying resources for their army due to bailing out A-H. Because Germany were being pushed to the limits, it was easy for them to be attacked on both fronts. W.B. Yeats' Poem "The Second Coming") speaks retrospectively on the atmosphere of Europe during & after WW1. Yeats describes the German leaders mindsets as "the worst are full of passionate intensity", this passionate intensity could be seen as a reason for the signing of the "Treaty of Brest-Litovsk" between the Central powers (The Triple alliance & Bulgaria & Turkey) & Bolshevik Russia, the same treaty that got Russia out of WW1 because of revolution. So hopefully this answers your question, it was fun & insightful researching everything for this answer.

Sources:

"The War of the World" - Niall Ferguson

"The First World War: A New History" - Hew Strachan

"The Pity Of War" - Niall Ferguson

"The Eastern Front 1914-1917" - Norman Stone

If you interested in learning more about Bismarck himself, The German Question & the process of German unification then I'd recommend Johnathan Steinberg's "Bismarck: A Life"